Posted on 01/18/2008 5:16:56 PM PST by FreeReign
Mike Huckabee is now out stumping for votes using various versions of the question, "If you can't be honest before the election, can we trust you to be honest after the election?"
It's a good question and standard, so let's apply it to Huckabee.
From Mike Huckabee's official website we read,
Sounds strong and convincing. But there's one problem, it's not true. Huckabee has not always supported a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. In the spirit of "federalism" Huckabee once lobbied to bridge the divide between pro-choice and pro-life Republicans by revising the party platform on abortion.
Read on . . .
In 1995 Huckabee said,
More recently in 2006, Huckabee was interviewed by John Hawkins and said,
So up until 2006, Huckabee saw abortion as an issue that should be left up to the states not a federal issue. Now watch as Huckabee talks to Chris Wallace about his position as opposed to other candidates on Fox News Sunday, November 18, 2007.
So one year later, in an attempt to distinguish himself from the other candidates, he said he's never changed his position, that a federalist position was "not good enough" and on moral issues you can't have 50 versions of right and wrong. He is openly critical and amazed that Thompson does not support a human life amendment because it had been part of the Republican platform since 1980. He never mentions that up until last year, he held the same position or that he once sought to change the party platform in to reflect a state's rights position.
Clearly, Huckabee has switched his position on a constitutional amemdment despite what he said to Chris Wallace or his website now claims.
"If you can't be honest before the election, can we trust you to be honest after the election?"
Can we trust Huckabee to be honest after the election? I suppose the answer hinges upon your definition of the word "always."
Huckabee the Stalking Horse.
Anyway having said that it won't make a bit of differance to his supporters...
One question is...is Sen. Thompson a Stalking Horse for Sen. McCain? I hope not, but he sure seems to be trying to help Sen. McCain a lot!
How is Fred helping McCain?
Looks to me that Huckabee is helping McCain.
“In the spirit of federalism, the proposed GOP revision also would replace the abortion amendment with a statement saying the issue should be left up to the individual state legislatures to deal with as each sees fit.”
There’s no contradiction here. Because of Roe v. Wade, returning abortion to the state legislatures would have still required a constitutional amendment.
“So, I’ve never felt that it was a legitimate manner in which to address this and, first of all, it should be left to the states, the 10th Amendment, but secondly, to somehow believe that the taking of an innocent, unborn human life is about privacy and not about that unborn life is ludicrous.”
What he said isn’t legitimate is Roe v. Wade, not a constitutional amendment. It’s true that abortion should have been left to the states under the Tenth Amendment, but because it wasn’t, a constitutional amendment is now necessary.
Again, there’s no contradiction.
Sure. Huckabee stealing conservative voters from Fred is helping McCain.
Ask me if I believe he would protect OUR Second Amendment rights? NOT in this life time!
If the "good ole boys" went to him and said "this is why we have to do it" then he would sell us down the river in a New York minute. Like I said, he's unstable.
Wrong. The SCOTUS can overturn Roe.
If Fred Thompson thought McCain was a good candidate, he wouldn’t even be in the race at all. Your question doesn’t make any sense.
What?
The Constitution already says what it says. You don't try to pass a Constitutional Amendment about something that is already covered in the Constitution.
The meaning of the Constitution doesn't change just because 5 SC judges make a mistake.
“The SCOTUS can overturn Roe.”
Not unless a state passes a law to challenge it. In any case, because Roe v. Wade hadn’t been overturned when Governor Huckabee proposed the change to the party platform, returning abortion to the state legislatures would have still required a constitutional amendment.
According to his campaign website, he has always been in favor of the Human Life amendment.
The article provides two quotes, one from less than two years ago, of him saying that the issue should be left to the states.
How is that not a contradiction?
“You don’t try to pass a Constitutional Amendment about something that is already covered in the Constitution.”
More than one amendment has been passed to clarify or change something the Constitution already covered.
More than one amendment has been passed to clarify or change something the Constitution already covered.
Really?
The tenth amendment needs no clarification. If we fall for that false claim, then the Constitution haters, win.
Please.
Anyway having said that it won’t make a bit of differance(sic) to his supporters..’
He seems to scurry and twist about like a religious rat in heat, sort of like a Republican Jimmy Carter. Those who crave the Presidency as much as he does, have no bounds or depths.
“According to his campaign website, he has always been in favor of the Human Life amendment.”
A number of versions of a Human Life Amendment have been proposed, including some that would have simply returned the issue to the states.
“The article provides two quotes, one from less than two years ago, of him saying that the issue should be left to the states. How is that not a contradiction?”
I think my statement above answers that, but I’d also like to point out that the 2006 quote only means the right to prohibit abortion shouldn’t have been taken out of the states’ hands in the first place. It doesn’t imply that, now that it has been, there shouldn’t be a constitutional amendment to explicitly protect the right to life.
Here’s comparison between Huck and my favorite:
Huckabee (2001 State of the State Address):
I’m pro life, but I know not everyone agrees with me on that particular topic, and I respect that. I’ll probably never change my conviction on that, and some of you won’t change yours. But in this day in which we talk about choice and the importance of it, surely we can agree that if under the Supreme Court choice is mandated, that choice should be as educated a choice as is humanly possible”.
- - - - - - -
Duncan Hunter:
“I have also introduced the Right to Life Act, which would legally define “personhood” as the moment of conception and, therefore guarantee all constitutional rights and protections, including life, to the unborn without utilizing a constitutional amendment”. Hunter would also like to propose amending the Constitution if elected. (I think the Right To Life Act that he has been pushing for years is the better way to go.)
DH-HD
“The tenth amendment needs no clarification. If we fall for that false claim, then the Constitution haters, win.”
The Founding Fathers viewed the Tenth Amendment itself as a mere clarification, and some of them initially opposed it on the grounds that it was unnecessary.
The right to amend the Constitution is established by the Constitution.
Oh, please. Stop spinning or you'll get dizzy. Where do you Huckabee supporters come up with this crap?
Yes, I can believe that there have been some slight rewordings of the HLA's exact language over the years. None of them involved returning the abortion question to the states. If you really think that there has been one, please provide a cite for that.
The Founding Fathers viewed the Tenth Amendment itself as a mere clarification, and some of them initially opposed it on the grounds that it was unnecessary.
The 10th amendment was the clarification. To suggest that we should clarify it again is to suggest that the 10th amendment doesn't say what it says.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.