Huckabee: Let’s amend the Constitution to bring it in line with “God’s standards”
posted at 10:29 am on January 15, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Big government plus religious demagoguery — it’s two classic Huck soundbites rolled into one. He could have said “let’s bring it in line with moral standards” or just said what he means, i.e. “let’s ban abortion and gay marriage nationwide.” But there’s no identity politics in that phrasing, is there? For “God’s standards,” it takes more of a “Christian leader,” shall we say. Read this post if you missed it yesterday and see again why the analogy to senior citizens is so bogus.
Neither one of these amendments has a prayer of passing, of course, which makes his whole appeal here essentially dishonest. Oh well. Just win, baby.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Well said, CZ52′ OUT!
CZ52GUY on January 15, 2008 at 5:03 PM
If the sole basis for a politcal agenda is the revealation of one particular religous group while all other groups are excluded as deluded apostates and if there is no concurrent appeal for that agenda based on prudence and practical reason then that agenda is indeed theocratic.
Originalism as a judicial philosophy isn’t based on any religious viewpoint it is based on a traditional understanding of the text of the Constitution. With Huck I’m afraid we will just get religious activist judges that will also ignore the text of the constitution to legislate and impose “God’s values.” If you are truly an originalist you would find that as repugnant as the imposition of liberal values in contradiction to the text of the constituion.
phronesis on January 15, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Then either could also enact laws prohibiting free speech, the free press, etc, because they are listed in the same 1st amendment as freedom of religion, which only applies to congress, not local and state governments. Perhaps. The problem is that local and state authorities are hiding behind judges who will do the dirty work because those legislative bodies are afraid to push it themselves and face the voters.
AverageJoe on January 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM
CZ52GUY:
“What many of us resent is the imposition of an extra-Constitutional re-definition of marriage”
the constitution is mute on the matter of what marriage consists of. the fact is that it is the theocrats who are trying to make it a constitutional matter it has no business being. and for what? well, because it is being defined “extra-constitutionally” or outside of the constitution. the gay marriage people don’t offend the constitution of the united states which i pledge allegeance to. they offend your faith belief in the authority of leviticus. you are out of line, modestly put.
“No disagreement that judges who interpret vs. legislate is preferable…”
liar. you claim this in the exact same post in which you assert that the normal legal proceedure of precident and interpretation are unacceptable…
“I think one way or another, marriage will end up as a Constitutional question. …Give it a few years, a 14th amendment claim will be made by someone married in Mass’, or another state which may similarly recognize gay marriage in the future when the couple moves and seeks recognition of their union.”
your prescription for this “problem” is not to challenge it on the same level, but to burn the whole house down by mangling the constitution with ammendments.
jummy on January 15, 2008 at 5:16 PM
you know, to the extent that i “fear” being banned from this site, i may actually fear bryan preston’s wrath, because, unlike in the case of The Cosmic Dictator, i can be convinced of bryan preston’s existence and power to ban me.
jummy on January 15, 2008 at 5:20 PM
I don’t agree with a lot of the over the top characterizations either, but face it: That’s the kind of reaction that someone like Huckster is going to generate, unfair though it might be. Huck is damaging both the Republican party and the Christian conservative community, whether they realize it or not.
As pointed out earlier- what if a front-running Muslim (or other non-Christian) candidate openly campaigned on the notion that the Constitution should be amended to conform to their religious beliefs? Most of us would practically be ready to storm his headquarters with torches and pitchforks.
Hollowpoint on January 15, 2008 at 5:21 PM
That’s a stretch. Huckabee’s has never stated, and is not implying, that Christianity needs to become the official religion of the US, and all other religions must get out. You have your religions mixed up. The basic tenet of Christianity is that the individual needs to accept Jesus as their savior, and it cannot be imposed by force. Therefore a “Christian”, of the Evangelical kind at least, would never try to make Christianity the official religion of the land.
AverageJoe on January 15, 2008 at 5:21 PM
I wasn’t refering to making evangelical christianity the official religion of the US, I was making a broader point: It is wrong to use the coercive power of the state to impose upon others a political agenda based solely upon the revealed beliefs of one particular religion if that agenda cannot also be supported without reference to those revelation-based beliefs.
phronesis on January 15, 2008 at 5:33 PM
CZ52GUY:
“…your rambling responses are difficult to follow but I’ll do my best.
You addressed Huckabee’s proposed amendments by calling him solid waste…”
nope.
that was a poster named “centerfire”. you know this, and i know you know this because i was following your response to him.
you are a very dishonest person who cannot discuss this with your actual opponents without strawman fallacies and emotional blackmail. when you spout the same tired nonsense about how atheists cannot be moral independently of religious tradition, i wonder if it is worth reminding such a cynical and dishonest person that those moral traditions were created by man, and that men like you stand as examples that erroneous belief in a god or gods contributes nothing to causing a man to bind himself to those moral traditions.
your explaination that the only thing which offends you about sharia law is a matter which could be dispelled by injudicious application of the constitutional amendment process which you are regardless eager to employ, was more frank than i had expected at least.
jummy on January 15, 2008 at 5:36 PM
Any state imposition will be based on some worldview. Just because a world view is in turn based upon the revealed beliefs of one particular religion does not eliminate it from the political sphere of influence.
I don’t like Huckabee’s obvious pandering to many evangelicals by claiming he’s also an evangelical (which happens to be true), but I think people underestimate how many of those people have other reasons for voting Huck. He has many positions that reasonate with evangelicals, and non-evangelicals, and those positionsthat don’t, most consider secondary. Just dont generalize by saying the his support is only among those that solely base their decision on religion.
AverageJoe on January 15, 2008 at 5:49 PM
CZ52GUY:
“A challenge was issued for a “tough guy” from the RR to come in and stand his ground.”
actually, liar, fool, you had posted twice before i posted my challenge.
jummy on January 15, 2008 at 5:50 PM
may I also remind people here that Bryan is one of those “Bible thumping hicks”.
EnochCain on January 15, 2008 at 4:09 PM
I made a comment on how Huck “sounded like America’s version of the Taliban,” a week ago and Bryan descended on me like something out of the Old Testament. And that was before Huck’s latest gaff. Thou Shalt Not Upset Bryan.
PS: Bryan has repeatedly stated he is not a Huck fan.
thejackal on January 15, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Well said. The battle for the judiciary will be just as important and critical a fight as any other issue we will confront in the years to come. Indeed, even Justice Scalia has recognized that it is possible, absent an originalist philosophy, for there to be very activist conservative courts.
As you suggest, Huckabee’s nominees would likely be blind to the original meaning of the Constitution. That is a proposition as equally disturbing as the propensity of many judges to interpret the Constitution as though it were an evolving “breathing” document.
kc2ige on January 15, 2008 at 6:25 PM
This sort of talk from Huck is completely unacceptable. And I say this as a fairly religious, fairly conservative person.
Mr. Bingley on January 15, 2008 at 7:56 PM
This doesn’t surprise me. He’s already said once on national tv that he would amend The Constitution.
Did anyone see Craig Ferguson with Mike Huckabee?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3R_fAwF5YM
I just thought he was pandering. Now I know he doesn’t give a flip for The Constitution.
Don’t get me wrong; I like Craig. But not that much.
PureMutt on January 15, 2008 at 8:21 PM
Holy Moly – He is exploiting Jesus. I’m not sure Jesus would approve of this.
Oh yeah I forgot God endorsed him.
Buttercup on January 15, 2008 at 9:10 PM
I don’t see why what Huckabee said is so controversial to Republicans. To Democrats? Sure. But imagine he wants to make the amendments that would constitutionally guarantee the following:
1- Make abortions illegal/life begins at conception
2- Allow for things like in “God we trust” on bills or the pledge of allegiance containing references to God
3- Allow for posting of 10 commandments and others (nativity scenes) in publics places
4- Allow discrimination based on sexual orientation
5- Ban gay marriage/define marriage as between a man and a woman
Obviously amendments might not be worded as such (too precise in some cases), but would be worded in a way that would prevent so called “judicial activism”. I would think these types of amendments would make Republicans happy and would be inline with what Huckabee said.
mycowardice on January 15, 2008 at 9:35 PM
That’s better than bringing the Constitution up to Comrade Clinton’s standards.
Chimp 6 on January 15, 2008 at 9:52 PM
There is more to the Republican party than bible thumping. That is all well and good but it seems it’s all he has. That and a sense of humor and come to think of it he’s not really even very funny. Being overly religious scares people off. He’s vague,no substance, no real plan for anything, any discussion of his record is a personal attack…and then there’s the Gomer factor.
That is my beef with him anyway.
Fred 08
Buttercup on January 15, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Bull’s Eye!
What would the Huckhead reaction be had Romney talked of bringing The Constitution in line with The Book Of Mormon?
soundingboard on January 15, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Bingo!
I have a distaste for any candidate saying they will conform laws to religious doctrine. We may as well appoint ayatollahs if we are going to go that route.
Which is to say nothing of his seeming willingness to amend the Constitution willy nilly which, again, I’m not all that fond of.
MannyT-vA on January 16, 2008 at 12:51 AM
Why not? How exactly does a candidate who believes in creation become unfit for public office? Does our slow rate of evolution call for a new government program? Do we need to hear the candidates’ platforms for evolution-friendly policies?
Does a president — or anyone else in government — have any business in determining what is and is not science? Then what difference does it make whether a candidate believes in evolution? Is there a need for a new government program to ensure we evolve more rapidly?
What’s next? A mandate for government to decree that human-caused global warming is good science, and any other theories about global warming being more moderate, or caused by non-human agents, are pseudoscience?
The standard you propose here is not only bad government, but lousy science as well. Science that becomes religion will cease to advance as science.
theregoestheneighborhood on January 16, 2008 at 1:27 AM
Very much on point here. When Huckabee says, “Bring the constitution in line with God’s standards,” he’s putting it exactly wrong. The problem is not that the Constitution is out of step with God’s standards, but that the Constitution keeps getting “re-interpreted” to say what it doesn’t.
The Constitution doesn’t outlaw abortion. Activist judges declared it outlawed by the flimsiest of reasoning.
The Constitution doesn’t prohibit prayer at public, even government-sponsored events. If it did, there would be no Congressional chaplains or military chaplains. Activist judges ignored the clear and traditional meaning of an established church, and interpreted “establishment of religion” in the most hair-splitting way possible to strip people of what is actually promised in the first amendment, the “free exercise” of their religion.
The Constitution certainly has nothing to say about so-called “gay marriage.”
Truthfully, it’s offensive to suggest we have to amend the Constitution just to prevent activist judges from continually discovering “new rights” that no one ever noticed before.
The amendment on “gay marriage” is particularly offensive. The mere fact that no one in the past 200+ years of our country ever considered laws on equal protection to somehow encompass men marrying men and women marrying women should be enough to establish that “gay marriage” is not a Constitutional right.
But make no mistake: the point of a constitutional amendment on “gay marriage” is not to change the Constitution, but to prevent activists from changing it by judicial fiat. The point of a constitutional amendment on abortion is not to “outlaw abortion,” but to put an end to the tortured reasoning that spawned the current “right to reproductive freedom.”
theregoestheneighborhood on January 16, 2008 at 1:56 AM
It bears repeating: Huckabee said it exactly wrong. The idea is not to change the Constitution, but to prevent judges from changing the Constitution by interpretation (in the case of “gay marriage”), or to roll back a change in interpretation by judges that declared a Constitutional right to abortion.
And yes, amending the Constitution sounds very much like changing it, but the purpose is more to preserve it by removing ambiguity.
BTW, the first bit of judicial activism the Supreme Court engaged in was when they declared they had the right to review the Constitutionality of any laws passed by Congress. The Constitution does not give them that right. Congress, however, does have the power to revoke or constrict the roles of all the federal courts.
theregoestheneighborhood on January 16, 2008 at 2:18 AM
Trying to remove ambiguity is wishful thinking. Sure, you might be able to address one particular set of problems, but tomorrow another problem will come up and judges will, again, have to resort to interpretations and conjectures.
mycowardice on January 16, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3