Video: Huckabee says the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” Update: Huck’s website disagrees

posted at 1:29 pm on January 18, 2008 by Bryan

The comment came during an interview with CNN this morning.

I’m not going to rant about this. I will point out that Huckabee’s position doesn’t square up well with the Constitution’s amendment process — a process laid out precisely because it ought to be difficult to change the Constitution, but change is sometimes necessary, and it’s necessary because the Constitution isn’t a living, breathing document. If it were, as the proponents of that understanding tend to believe, you can find meanings in the penumbras of what’s actually written, meanings that might in fact be at odds with the plain understanding of the words themselves, without having to amend the document to find the new meaning therein. And I will also point out that the “living, breathing document” argument regarding the Constitution comes not from conservative or constructionist thinking, but from the left.

Make of all that what you will. Huckabee’s “living, breathing” statement hits at just under 4 minutes in.

Update: Well, I might rant about this. Slublog emails to note that Gov. Huckabee doesn’t agree with his own campaign web site, which says:

I firmly believe that the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original meaning, and flatly reject the notion of a “living Constitution.”

It goes on from there to detail what the “living Constitution” means and why he rejects it.

So will his excuse be that he didn’t write that part of his own web site, or that he didn’t read it?

Update: Fred Thompson agrees with Huckabee’s website, not Huckabee’s interview.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3 4

As reported on the Club for Growth website,

Huckabee told NPR on Wednesday that he would like to outlaw independent political speech in the public domain:

I personally wish that all of this were outlawed. I think that every candidate ought to speak for himself, and that everything that involves the candidate’s name or another candidate’s name should be authorized and approved by that candidate, otherwise it shouldn’t be spoken . . . The point is that candidates can’t force these special interest 527 groups to stop. I wish we could. – Mike Huckabee

http://www.clubforgrowth.com/

The Huckster just gets scarier and scarier for real conservatives.

azcop on January 18, 2008 at 7:59 PM

There isn’t any real freedom in Huckabeeland. He’d ban smoking (OK, it’s a nasty habit)

Please Buzzy, do try to keep up with Huck’s daily turnabouts: With Michigan behind him and South Carolina next, he’s reversed himself on his former support of a national smoking ban.

electric-rascal on January 18, 2008 at 8:02 PM

So, when does Huckles start wearing his robes on the campaign trail?

oakpack on January 18, 2008 at 8:16 PM

Mike Huckabee is this conservative’s worst case scenario. Thank goodness there are enough people who feel as I do to make sure he never gets into the Oval office.

This FredHead will be voting for Fred Thompson on February 5th.

http://www.fred08.com

redneck hippie on January 18, 2008 at 9:34 PM

Well, I might rant about this. Slublog emails to note that Gov. Huckabee doesn’t agree with his own campaign web site, which says:

I firmly believe that the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original meaning, and flatly reject the notion of a “living Constitution.”

What was it Huckabee said, about how he who is dishonest in becoming President would be dishonest as President?

Tzetzes on January 18, 2008 at 9:39 PM

His mention of “some contemporary understanding of the Constitution” in fact shows the problem with the “living, breathing, jogging Constitution with a healthy heartbeat”.

Also, which understanding of Scripture? His literalist one? Romney’s? The rabbinical one? The intertestamental one? Luther’s? Calvin’s? Christopher Hitchens’?

Tzetzes on January 18, 2008 at 9:40 PM

Easy to answer: When he is on the internet, it isn’t a living constitution, and when he is out stumping it is living…or is it the other way around…well, either way he likes both ideas. If you have two children, how could you choose one over the other? Did Christ love one disciple more than another? WWJD? He would love both ideas equally.
See, it’s easy to be a Christian, you don’t really have to have belief, just faith…faith in the fact that you can rationalize this man is a conservative, that will protect conservative values. No brains, just faith…

right2bright on January 18, 2008 at 9:56 PM

Its time I’m ready,

Click link to open.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiRQ95jk08

apacalyps on January 18, 2008 at 10:10 PM

See, it’s easy to be a Christian, you don’t really have to have belief, just faith…faith in the fact that you can rationalize this man is a conservative, that will protect conservative values. No brains, just faith…

right2bright on January 18, 2008 at 9:56 PM

Every time I read these comments, atheists and non-evangelicals are trashing Christians.

No matter what happens this election cycle, there is a huge spilt happening in the Republican Party. This has been in the making for years, and it’s now manifesting itself for everyone to witness.

It’s sad, but inevitable.

Maybe three parties are on the way?

Skidd on January 18, 2008 at 10:13 PM

Nitpicking again…. looking for anything you can to bash Gov. Huckabee??

Three of the four top candidates have significant apostasy on the defining issue of social conservatism. Rudy Giuliani is avowedly pro-choice, and even supported federal funding of abortion. Fred Thompson lobbied for Planned Parenthood. Mitt Romney’s flip-flops and thin cover-ups of said are well known.

Nope, no mention of this deception at that bastion of investigative blogging HotAir. Why am I not surprised?

apacalyps on January 18, 2008 at 10:13 PM

See, it’s easy to be a Christian, you don’t really have to have belief, just faith… No brains, just faith…

right2bright on January 18, 2008 at 9:56 PM

Everyone has the right to be stupid but you abuse the privilege.

Have any of you ever heard of Irreducible Complexity? Irreducible Complexity means that something requires all its parts in order to function, so therefore it couldn’t have possibly evolved. A good example is the eye. Or the Flagellum bacteria. There is lot’s of evidence for creation.

Okay bigshot. What do you believe in if you don’t God created it as the Bible teaches? You think evolution is true???

apacalyps on January 18, 2008 at 10:19 PM

This FredHead will be voting for Fred Thompson on February 5th.

http://www.fred08.com

redneck hippie on January 18, 2008 at 9:34 PM

Then you are voting to kill little babies. Fred is not against abortion. Abortion is murder and Thompson would allow people in each state to decide their own abortion laws. Duh!

apacalyps on January 18, 2008 at 10:23 PM

No matter what happens this election cycle, there is a huge spilt happening in the Republican Party. This has been in the making for years, and it’s now manifesting itself for everyone to witness.

It’s sad, but inevitable.

Skidd on January 18, 2008 at 10:13 PM

You got that right! The cynicism on the right and exploitation of the evangelicals is coming back to haunt them. People are waking up.

Maybe three parties are on the way?

I hope so. Peace.

apacalyps on January 18, 2008 at 10:26 PM

You got that right! The cynicism on the right and exploitation of the evangelicals is coming back to haunt them. People are waking up.

apacalyps on January 18, 2008 at 10:26 PM

I agree that over the years, we Christians have been used. We have allowed it, though. It’s to the point now that most Christians are stepping out of the shadow of the Republican Party and the secular right doesn’t like it.

Skidd on January 18, 2008 at 10:32 PM

Go ahead then….vote for Fred.

You might as well vote for John Mccain…because that’s all a Fred vote is….a Mccain vote.

HaraldHardrada on January 18, 2008 at 6:31 PM

Any vote not for Huckabee is a good vote. McCain is not my first (or second or third) choice, but Huckabee is the worst possible. Whenever I see him, it just makes me think about “Character Counts” and it counts for the right, too. He has zero personal integrity. If he won, I’d need his permission to type this, since I used his name – oh, McCain’s permission, too. That seems great!

melda on January 18, 2008 at 10:36 PM

I agree that over the years, we Christians have been used. We have allowed it, though. It’s to the point now that most Christians are stepping out of the shadow of the Republican Party and the secular right doesn’t like it.

Skidd on January 18, 2008 at 10:32 PM

Right on brother!

Coulter and the corporate-cons on the right hate Huckabee and don’t know what to do about him without insulting their religious base that they’d taken advantage of for years with getting them to vote against their best interests in favor of corporate interests.

I’m afraid we have reached the day which the prophet had in mind when he wrote, “Woe unto them who call evil, good, and good, evil.” Isaiah 5:20

apacalyps on January 18, 2008 at 10:44 PM

(Huckabee) He has zero personal integrity.

melda on January 18, 2008 at 10:36 PM

Ha ha ha… that’s the best one I’ve heard so far. Not true, but they’ll sink to anything to throw an insult at the man.

apacalyps on January 18, 2008 at 10:46 PM

apacalyps on January 18, 2008 at 10:10 PM

Do you seriously think that using endorsements by Bill Clinton, Mark Shields, and Bill Maher (not to mention a 55+ year old washed-up professional wrestler) will convince conservatives to vote for Huckabee?

dawgyear on January 18, 2008 at 11:01 PM

apacalyps on January 18, 2008 at 10:46 PM

You do realize that you are doing your candidate more harm than good.

Most people do not trust ANYONE who is fanatical. Most people want to be left alone to run their lives with as little interference as possible…

I’m a theist… I believe somthing is out there… but your brand of in your face “Christianity”, and your arrogance that YOU know how to run MY life, will force me, and those like me, to fight you.

The only thing that scares me more than Hillary, is an overbearing RELIGIOUS leader…. of any religion…

Huck has come out and said he wants to CHANGE the F’n CONSTITUTION!!! Do you think he is WISE enough to do so??? Especicaly when he seems to change his stance on issues DAILY???

If Rudi is the Rep nomination… I’ll vote third party… Romney? I’ll hold my nose and vote for him… Fred! gets my vote…

But if Huck is the Republican nomination… I’ll vote for whoever the Dems put up, because the only thing worse than a Socialist, is someone who is ARROGANT enough to say they speak for GOD.

Romeo13 on January 18, 2008 at 11:21 PM

You got that right! The cynicism on the right and exploitation of the evangelicals is coming back to haunt them. People are waking up.

apacalyps on January 18, 2008 at 10:26 PM

Oh, for pete’s sake. Most of the people “bashing” Huckabee and his supporters here are Christians ourselves! Many are evangelicals and hate Huckabee because he’s a chronic liar and leans left on everything except social issues. The resentment is for those willing to tear apart the Reagan Coalition for Mike Huckabee. We in the Republican party and the conservative movement have not been “exploiting” evangelicals. We’ve been accommodating that part of the party for decades now, making issues like abortion and gay marriage centerpieces of the Republican party platform–even though these issues are clearly not the kind of issues that win elections. They’re not even issues that a president is able to make much of an impact on. But while fiscal conservatives, security hawks, and Christian social cons who vote on more than one issue have accommodated the hard-core single-issue evangelicals, recognizing their place and importance in the party, the favor is NOT being returned. You absolutely refused to support a highly electable candidate, Rudy Giuliani, because of his stance on abortion. Fine. Most of us backed off Giuliani in recognition of the fact that he is not in fact electable without voters like you. But you absolutely, categorically, stubbornly, and suicidally refuse to back off of Huckabee when those of us who prioritize economic and security issues tell you he’s not acceptable to us.

I’m Christian, but I recognize that Huckabee is bad for the country and he’s destroying the conservative movement, and that’s a terrible terrible thing. The conservative movement is the best chance Christians have to continue moving our values and objectives forward. But using the power of the federal government to force our values, beliefs, and ideals on the rest of the country is simply wrong. God rewards us in the hereafter for making good choices of our own free will, not for living under a government that forces us to do the “right thing.”

Don’t be stupid. You can’t win elections without the fiscal conservatives and security hawks, and they can’t win elections without the so-called evangelicals. Duh. Get over yourselves and choose someone who’s NOT a liar and a liberal, and the rest of us will get back on board with you. Your power has been felt, you scared us. No one is trying to force Giuliani on you anymore. Now stop trying to force Huckabee on the rest of us. We won’t accept him. Believe us, like we believed you.

Compromise, or we all go down together.

aero on January 18, 2008 at 11:21 PM

Since it’s unlikely that we will see an update about this (because it, unfortunately, will not confirm the “Huckabee is a liberal” narrative that pervades this otherwise fine site), I’ll go ahead and post it myself.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/306806.aspx

It begins:

I believe there is a significant difference between liberal judicial activism which works to reinterpret the Constitution and collective action by the people to amend the Constitution.

medguy on January 18, 2008 at 11:23 PM

apacalyps what you don’t understand is that Huckabee isn’t even going to get close to an amendment against abortion or same sex marriage. Bush ran the same game to appease the Evangelicals and didn’t get close either. He knew it wouldn’t get passed, everyone with a brain could count up the votes and see it would never pass. It’s going to be even harder now. So just enjoy being used by another politician while those of us that know the real fight for Christian values is being fought and won on the state level.

I like the idea of 3 parties though. If Christians ever decide to run a conservative candidate and not some Democrat with an R after his name let me know I’ll probably vote for him. But Huckabee…. never.

Buzzy on January 18, 2008 at 11:24 PM

I like the idea of 3 parties though. If Christians ever decide to run a conservative candidate and not some Democrat with an R after his name let me know I’ll probably vote for him. But Huckabee…. never.

Buzzy on January 18, 2008 at 11:24 PM

I’m with you. But I wouldn’t want it to be a “Christian” party, though I’m a born-again Christian. Church/State fusion gives me the chills.

Skidd on January 18, 2008 at 11:33 PM

HaraldHardrada,
My guess is you feel pretty good about your choice since you have left the Fred campaign and been able to contribute to Huckabee’s campaign here.

Can you please summarize for us in a short non-bulleted format, without repeating yourself from any prior posts or throwing religious strain into the debate and without you imposing your opinion on which GOP candidate can win a national election, what exactly it is that you like about the man?

Mcguyver on January 18, 2008 at 7:17 PM

Took me forever to get home.
But here goes.

I support Huckabee because he is the strongest candidate on energy independence.

I like him because he has the most clear and concise understanding of the war against a global islamic caliphate and would be the best candidate to unite this country and win the GWOT!

I like him because of his strong sense of morality and the fact that he is a man of God who can clearly hear and follow the Word of God(an absolutely vital necessity in our next president)

I like him because of his strong fiscal conservatism and his belief in supply side economics.

I like that he would be able to actually deal with democrats and get the fair tax passed and finally get rid of the socialist income tax that punishes Americans for pursuing the American dream.

I like the fact that he is not a washington insider or believer in the council of foreign relations open border/north american union/one world government agenda and will fight to protect our sovereignty from the socialist UN.

I like the fact that he is the most inspiring and visionary politician I have seen in my life.

I like the fact that he is the most elouquent speaker in both parties and writes all of his own speeches.

I like the fact that independents and even democrats think he is a good man and the fact that he would be able to unite this country(and win the election)!

HaraldHardrada on January 18, 2008 at 11:39 PM

I would only support the separation of the Huckabee-types from the rest of the Republican party if the so-called “Progressives” leave the Democrat party at the same time. Then we’d all still have a fighting chance. If the Dems don’t split, though, the former factions of the Republican party would all be doomed to never, ever win an election again. If there were four parties, though, this is what they’d probably be:

* Democrats (“classical liberals”)

* Progressives (socialists)

* Conservatives (fiscal conservatives, small government types, security hawks, and social cons who put equal weight on the other legs of the conservative stool)

* Republicans (socially reactionary, fiscally somewhat liberal, strongly pro-life, family values evangelicals and social justice types)

And if a multi-party system actually did take hold, I think we’d see a strengthening of “lesser” parties, such as the libertarian party and the green party, though they would probably form coalitions with one or more of the four “main” parties in order to gain more influence.

aero on January 18, 2008 at 11:45 PM

like him because of his strong sense of morality and the fact that he is a man of God who can clearly hear and follow the Word of God(an absolutely vital necessity in our next president)

I like the fact that independents and even democrats think he is a good man and the fact that he would be able to unite this country(and win the election)!

HaraldHardrada on January 18, 2008 at 11:39 PM

Uhhh… got news bud… a “religious” leader will never UNITE this country. He’ll do nothing but further tear it apart.

I’m a VERY conservative person… and I HATE Hillary… but if its between a “Religious” leader, and Hillary? I’ll vote Hillary.

And I am FAR from alone.

Private Religious belief? No Prob… telling me you speak with a Heavenly mandate? Your outa the pool bud.

Romeo13 on January 18, 2008 at 11:52 PM

Romeo13 on January 18, 2008 at 11:52 PM

That’s just you….and if you are a hillary supporter then you have mental problems that are most likely incurable.

HaraldHardrada on January 18, 2008 at 11:56 PM

I’m a VERY conservative person… and I HATE Hillary… but if its between a “Religious” leader, and Hillary? I’ll vote Hillary.

Romeo13 on January 18, 2008 at 11:52 PM

Is this because the view of religious people is that they’re touched in the head?

Skidd on January 18, 2008 at 11:59 PM

HaraldHardrada on January 18, 2008 at 11:56 PM

Stop attacking. State your views with respect, please. You’re a Christian. Think Christ, not “agenda”.

Skidd on January 19, 2008 at 12:02 AM

HaraldHardrada on January 18, 2008 at 11:56 PM

You, as a Newb to this site… calling me a HILLARY SUPPORTER????

BWA HA HAHAHAHA AHAHHHA HAHAHAAAA

Dam, just sprayed my drink all over my keyboard.

Apparently you can’t read, or don’t bother to.

I’m a VERY conservative person… and I HATE Hillary… but if its between a “Religious” leader, and Hillary? I’ll vote Hillary.

And I may add… telling someone they have “mental problems” is a sure sign they are LOOSING the debate.

Romeo13 on January 19, 2008 at 12:03 AM

I’ll vote Hillary.
Romeo13 on January 18, 2008 at 11:52 PM

Proof!

HaraldHardrada on January 19, 2008 at 12:04 AM

Skidd on January 19, 2008 at 12:02 AM

Is it not a proven fact that in order to be a hillary supporter you must be have mental problems?….I’m aware of her positions, so is romeo I’m sure.

HaraldHardrada on January 19, 2008 at 12:07 AM

HaraldHardrada on January 18, 2008 at 11:56 PM

It’s not just Romeo. I’m a Christian, and Huck’s fuzziness about separation of church and state is a serious deal-breaker for me.

And thinking that Huck’s “good man” reputation (which most of us realize is incorrect since he’s in fact an underhanded, nasty, passive-aggressive chronic liar) carries any weight with Dems is just plain ridiculous. The majority of Dems have a knee-jerk negative reaction to people openly expressing their faith, and they outright fear and hate political leaders who do it. President Bush does it regularly, and they cringe or denigrate him for it every time. I don’t have a problem with Bush’s strong faith and his expressing it publicly, but Dems HATE it. (I would hate it, too, if I thought he meant to try to force Constitutional amendments that would impose his/my faith on the entire country.) That would be wrong in both a political and a spiritual sense. True Christianity requires followers to choose Christianity and good works of their own free will, not by government edict. Romeo is right. Huck can’t unite this country as a “Christian leader.” He could do it as a conservative leader who happens to be a Christian, but he’s not conservative enough to pull that off.

aero on January 19, 2008 at 12:10 AM

Is this because the view of religious people is that they’re touched in the head?

Skidd on January 18, 2008 at 11:59 PM

Not at all. I have no problem at all with people of Faith, right up until they want to change my society, or way of life. They are free to live their lives as they choose… but should grant me the same right.

I also don’t have problems with Gay people, until they put their hand on my … posterier.

I just don’t believe that ANYONE knows the mind of God. I’ve read about and studied the changes in the “Christian” church… how different times interpreted things differently… and so don’t trust any MAN when he says he has a lock on an eternal truth… and wants to change society to fit HIS beliefs.

When a Presidential Candidate says he wants to remake the Constitution and make it in line with HIS view of “God’s Law”…. the same law that has changed time and again throughout history???

It scares the Bejesus out of me….

We’re already fighting one form of Religious extremism… we really don’t need another one here…

Romeo13 on January 19, 2008 at 12:13 AM

Not at all. I have no problem at all with people of Faith, right up until they want to change my society, or way of life. They are free to live their lives as they choose… but should grant me the same right.

Romeo13 on January 19, 2008 at 12:13 AM

But, and I’m not going to get theological here, that “living your own life” thing stops at some point because of one group (group “a”) of people quashing another group (group “b”, “c”, etc) of their rights and way of life. Someone is always at the top, smacking down on others.

The living your life freely argument doesn’t work, Romeo.

Skidd on January 19, 2008 at 12:23 AM

But, and I’m not going to get theological here, that “living your own life” thing stops at some point because of one group (group “a”) of people quashing another group (group “b”, “c”, etc) of their rights and way of life. Someone is always at the top, smacking down on others.

The living your life freely argument doesn’t work, Romeo.

Skidd on January 19, 2008 at 12:23 AM

Never perfect… but it IS what the great experiment called America was all about.

By and large, this country has been the most Free, and able to change, of any society in history….

We are the only one with Freedom of Speech in its founding document… and religion… and press… and….

Sure we’ve screwed up… but we have also freed the slave… fought oppresion… won a couple of world wars… gave women the vote… and led the world in a technological revolution that truly changed the world.

We are also now the Government which has lasted the longest without changing form currently in existance. Others have the same names as they had, but not the same form of government…

To use your own words… we live more freely here than anywhere else in the world (and yes… I’ve been to 6 of 7 continents… and around the world twice…).

I am not willing to give that up… are you?

Romeo13 on January 19, 2008 at 12:36 AM

aero on January 18, 2008 at 11:21 PM

+eleventy

Laura on January 19, 2008 at 12:45 AM

I am not willing to give that up… are you?

Romeo13 on January 19, 2008 at 12:36 AM

No sir, I’m not willing to give freedom up. But the reason people like you and I are so frustrated now is because our freedoms ARE being taken away, liberal policy by liberal policy.

One thing libs can’t grasp is that freedom isn’t free. And freedom doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want, wherever you want, as long as you want. Their definition of freedom is our definition of chaos.

Yet you and I as two conservative guys see things from different worldviews. Though we may agree on many issues, I will work toward the worldview of the Bible and you won’t. I see ultimate freedom as Christ-centered, inside the home and in greater society.

Skidd on January 19, 2008 at 12:47 AM

aero on January 19, 2008 at 12:10 AM

+eleventy squared

Very well put. I am a Christian and a conservative, and have only voted Democrat one time, when the Republican candidate was David Duke. But I will cross party lines to vote against Huckabee.

Laura on January 19, 2008 at 12:48 AM

Romeo13 on January 19, 2008 at 12:36 AM

Nicely said. Because of all that, I’d have to hate myself 24 hours a day for voting Hillary, and hand this bastion of Capitalism over to socialism. I’m also with you on not voting for a ReverandinChief.

At some point MB4 will come by and say something similar to this “No, no, no, my little one, Hillary and Obama will not destroy the republic…and maybe, just maybe another Ronald Reagan will emerge…” I wish I could be more optimistic about that.

Rudderless and chaotic vessel that the Republican party of today is, it deserves to lose in Nov. These threads are a good indication of things to come.

Entelechy on January 19, 2008 at 12:53 AM

“I believe my party has gone astray. I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and their philosophy.” John McCain

HaraldHardrada on January 18, 2008 at 11:46 PM

On taxes, McCain voted with the liberal Democrats against the Bush tax cuts twice. McCain was one of only two Republican senators to oppose the Bush tax cuts.

apacalyps on January 19, 2008 at 1:01 AM

I see ultimate freedom as Christ-centered, inside the home and in greater society.

Skidd on January 19, 2008 at 12:47 AM

How can you consider that Freedom? If I choose not to follow your Christian ideals? Especialy those that have changed over the last 2000 years.

That worldview would put an imprint on society that would be unchangeable because it would be Holy Writ.

Bible says its OK to keep slaves. Our society said… no… so we free’d them…

Bible says “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” so I guess we have to Kill all the Wicans??? (it actualy says that you can’t let “evel Practitioners of majic” to live, but the King James mis interpreted it…)…

Is it “thou shall not kill”?, or thou shall not commit murder?

Is war justified? or as the United Methodist Church now says, is NO war ever justified?

Whose view of religious beliefs… given a legal mandate… are YOU willing to live under…

Romeo13 on January 19, 2008 at 1:10 AM

stlpatriot on January 19, 2008 at 12:07 AM

I would love to have a copy of your posting history here. You have a foul mouth. Huck haters like you viciously attack him and when I strike back to defend the man, the waterworks begin.

If you’re a Christian, please tell me this? How many ways are there to heaven?

apacalyps on January 19, 2008 at 1:20 AM

Again, since we can be sure that we won’t see an update to this post showing Huckabee’s response to the spin initiated by this blog, I will go ahead and post it myself.

Huckabee was on Hannity and Colmes tonight. At the end, he was asked about Fred’s press release about the “living breathing document” incident.

Mike Huckabee’s response:

I don’t have any heat toward Fred. I just think Fred just gets up too late to get the whole story. I mean, look, here’s the fact: If we hadn’t changed the Constitution–which we’ve done 27 time in 221 years–women couldn’t vote, we wouldn’t have African Americans voting. In fact, we wouldn’t have ended slavery. The freedom of the press wouldn’t be there in the First Amendment. And we wouldn’t have the Tenth Amendment that left powers to the states that weren’t in the Constitution.

When I said, “a living, breathing document,” I’m not talking about judges changing it; I’m talking about the process, because the genius of the Constitution is that it can be changed. The genius of the Bible is that we have 10 commandments, not 9, not 12.

medguy on January 19, 2008 at 1:22 AM

Whose view of religious beliefs… given a legal mandate… are YOU willing to live under…

Romeo13 on January 19, 2008 at 1:10 AM

Those are great questions you ask, but most of them are theological in nature and would be extremely difficult to answer in this type of forum.

I belong to a Baptist congregation, but I’m Christian first. If my congregation wanted me to follow an unbiblical principal, I wouldn’t. I belong to Christ, not to a Baptist demonination.

As for your question about kill or murder, the text states, MURDER.

The slave and war questions are theological, as well as the witch question. But the simplest question to answer is the witch question. No, no burning of witches.

Please don’t ask why. I write too slow and I’m heading to bed. Maybe another time.

Thanks, Romeo. Good night.

Skidd on January 19, 2008 at 1:25 AM

For the record, while I support Huckabee I’m not too thrilled with his comments about McCain. I have a feeling though this has more to do with McCain’s military service and the fact they are both running clean ad campaigns against one another.

I have nothing against McCain personally, but he would be a DISASTER for this country if elected. McCain is a liberal.

apacalyps on January 19, 2008 at 1:31 AM

You’re a riot. Do you take your lines from Star Wars movies?

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2008 at 12:11 AM

No brother, but this is a battle between the light side and dark side. Apparently, you and some of the others here have been seduced by the dark side of the Force. This is no surprise because the Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.

There is nothing here for you anymore now MadisonConservative. Come join the Huckabee team and learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi like the rest of us.

apacalyps on January 19, 2008 at 1:41 AM

apacalyps,

I’m an evangelical. I have no hatred for evangelicals. I have some exasperation right now, and I think your statement, “I can smell your anti-Evangelical hate a mile away,” to be quitethe wrong thing to say, both in tone and in content.

INC on January 19, 2008 at 12:12 AM

I do not take that back one inch. I have no problem with a person disagreeing and not voting for Huckabee. Fine. I’m glad you don’t have EDS (Evangelical Derangement Syndrome) but some do, and I’m sorry, but those are just the facts.

I feel like I’m on the DailyKos. Just change Huckabee to Bush.

evil?
divisive?
despicable?

Unbelievable.

apacalyps on January 19, 2008 at 1:49 AM

Exactly

HaraldHardrada on January 19, 2008 at 1:52 AM

Seriously ArmageddonHuck, do you take us for fools?

BKennedy on January 19, 2008 at 12:13 AM

BKennedy, you keep putting forth that same old rhetoric spewed from the mouths of the GOP elite which is that Huckabee’s “too liberal” to make proper decisions, notably on the border, big vs. small gov’t, spending, entitlements and crime, blah blah, blah…”

apacalyps on January 19, 2008 at 1:52 AM

Skidd on January 19, 2008 at 1:25 AM

In case you see this tomorow… and to finish my point…

In your answer, you attempted to differentiate things as theological… and somthing other???

Key here is that at one time or another, slavery was legal… burning witches was legal… at times it was OK to pay an indulgance and literaly get away with murder… these were all both LEGAL and Theological positions…

Our founding fathers decided that NO man’s religious or philisophical beliefs should be manifest… its the Law, and Rights of the people which take priority…

But, Huck wants to bring the theological into the legal… thus the statement of bringing the Constitution in line with God’s Law (HIS INTERPRETATION OF IT!!!)… and thats my problem.

Romeo13 on January 19, 2008 at 2:00 AM

thus the statement of bringing the Constitution in line with God’s Law (HIS INTERPRETATION OF IT!!!)… and thats my problem.

Romeo13 on January 19, 2008 at 2:00 AM

Proposing a constitutional amendment banning abortion and a constitutional amendment affirming marriage is only between a man and a woman is pretty specific.

Your argument is flawed.

HaraldHardrada on January 19, 2008 at 4:07 AM

At some point MB4 will come by and say something similar to this “No, no, no, my little one, Hillary and Obama will not destroy the republic…and maybe, just maybe another Ronald Reagan will emerge…”

Entelechy on January 19, 2008 at 12:53 AM

No, no, no, my little one, Hillary and Obama will not destroy the republic…and maybe, just maybe another Ronald Reagan will emerge…

If we wait for the darkest hour.

MB4 on January 19, 2008 at 5:00 AM

Untill we spring alive…and the dream of America preys on my bones.

Entelechy on January 19, 2008 at 5:40 AM

evil?
divisive?
despicable?

Unbelievable.

apacalyps on January 19, 2008 at 1:49 AM

And he’s a religious gibot and I don’t care what faith he is. He is intolerant, a hypocrite, and he is a liar.

csdeven on January 19, 2008 at 7:03 AM

Gomer Huckabee……

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21615320@N06/2203797082/

awesum on January 19, 2008 at 8:01 AM

No wonder Huck’s air-kissing McCain. They’re like to peas in a pod when it comes to screwing around with the First Amendment.

Then you are voting to kill little babies. Fred is not against abortion. Abortion is murder and Thompson would allow people in each state to decide their own abortion laws. Duh!

apacalyps on January 18, 2008 at 10:23 PM

And that idiotic statement is an example of Irreducible Stupidity.

Buy Danish on January 19, 2008 at 9:41 AM

HaraldHardrada on January 19, 2008 at 4:07 AM

LOL… I’ll feed the troll one last time…

My arguement is fine… and I notice you don’t speak to the arguement, but just dismiss it as flawed, which it is not.

HE said he would bring the Constitution in line with God’s law… not me…

I would have no problem with him bringing up those Amendments at all… he can argue them all he wants… but as soon as he give his side the mandate of heaven? And uses that as an arguement to elect him???

Don’t you see? If he is on the side of the Lord, and you don’t agree with him, you are by definition on the side of the Devel… you are EVIL… just as YOUR rhetoric on this site has alluded too.

HE chose sides in this fight… and my side is the one who wants NO religion to CONTROL things… or be used as a whip to goad poeple into unthinking acceptance of someones opinion, because in that way lies Theocracys…

Romeo13 on January 19, 2008 at 10:48 AM

You Huckabee supporters really, really scare me. Notice I didn’t say “you evangelicals” or “you Christians” or “you social cons,” because I’m those things and I adamantly don’t agree with you. It is HUCKABEE SUPPORTERS who are scary and wrong, not all Christian Conservatives. Stop trying to create tribal warfare by lumping yourselves in with all evangelicals or all Christians. You are people who got scared and angry when you thought Giuliani was being forced on you. Huckabee is your revenge. Stop it. Seriously. You either have blinders on and can’t see Huckabee’s unviability, or you know full well how unacceptable he is and you’re supporting him for the express purpose of destroying the Reagan Coalition and exerting your power in a fractured and weakened party. Either way, you’re the problem, and it is immoral of you to try to take other Christians/Evangelicals with you when you leave.

aero on January 19, 2008 at 10:49 AM

Yeah,,, It doesn’t need interpretation, but I will interpret it further anyway,,,
“Every candidate should be able to say whatever they want without anyone correcting them, debating them, telling the other side or opposing them in anyway whatsoever. No person should be allowed to even utter the name of us candidates, because that is how high and holy we are! Our names are precious! We are holy! None should appose us!
Furthermore, I also would support a law banning direct eye contact with a candidate! Average or below average citizens have no business looking directly into the eyes of candidates! Average and below average citizens need to keep their eyes looking down and to the front of themselves at all times, especially when they are fortunate enough to be in the presence of a candidate!
This will also have a positive effect on the nations health care expenditures as fewer citizens will fall while walking.
Of course, it goes without saying, a citizen will always be expected to look into the eyes of a candidate, should that candidate instruct an officer of the law to bring the citizen before the candidate for questioning! We all know how dishonest the average citizen can be!

JellyToast on January 19, 2008 at 10:56 AM

Skidd on January 18, 2008 at 10:13 PM

Okay bigshot. What do you believe in if you don’t God created it as the Bible teaches? You think evolution is true???

apacalyps on January 18, 2008 at 10:19 PM

Well, first of all you don’t know what I believe.
If you could read, you would have seen I was talking about Huck, and him not being a conservative. It shows that brains don’t play into it, the evang. that are supporting him are basing it on faith, and faith alone, not brains.
See, he is against many of the conservative planks:
He raises taxes
Wants more government
Open border advocate (oh wait, he is willing to concede to ship them back for 24 hrs., before allowing them to returen)
Believes in a “living” consitution, or not…he isn’t consistent, so he doesn’t have a postition.
More feds in the classroom
Want more? That should be enough “planks” removed to create an empty platform.
He is not a conservative, not by any standards, so I am saying his support is on the faith that he will, not that he has.
Get it? Now learn to be discerning, learn that attacking Huck is not attacking Christians…he does not represent me.
Here is one more little tidbit.
Does the New Testament teach that you can’t serve two masters?
You can’t be a political leader, and a religious leader…the two are independent. Otherwise instead of Jesus Christ our Lord, we would be saying President Jesus Christ.
Christ stayed away from politics, and a man that espouses religion, should do that same…why? Because you can’t serve two masters.
Now get off your Christian high horse, you won’t find me debating you on evolution, the fact the Christ is my saviour, that He sacrificed his life for your and me, but I will argue that saying Huck is a conservative is based purely on faith and not fact…look at his record, not his words…Christ warned you about those kind of guys also.
Now go practice what you preach.

right2bright on January 19, 2008 at 11:17 AM

Everyday he keeps proving that he is a featherweight politician. He is not worthy to lead us.

Zorro on January 19, 2008 at 11:31 AM

I like him because of his strong sense of morality and the fact that he is a man of God who can clearly hear and follow the Word of God(an absolutely vital necessity in our next president)

I like the fact that he is the most elouquent speaker in both parties and writes all of his own speeches.

HaraldHardrada on January 18, 2008 at 11:39 PM

Too bad he couldn’t tell the truth here, he does not have a degree in theology…oh yeah, it’s okay for him to lie, he’s a “Christian”.

“I’m as strong on terror as anybody. In fact I think I’m stronger than most people because I truly understand the nature of the war that we are in with Islamofascism. These are people that want to kill us. It’s a theocratic war. And I don’t know if anybody fully understands that. I’m the only guy on that stage with a theology degree. I think I understand it really well.”

Well here is another problem, he not only lies, but lies about something that can be so easily tracked with timelines…but he can do this he is a “Christian”, so it just must have been another mistake.

Days later, Huckabee defended his gaffe by misrepresenting the timeline of his mistake, quipping that the “report was released at 10:00 in the morning, the president hadn’t seen it in four years and I’m supposed to see it four hours later.

Keep the faith you Hucksters, certainly his history and his actions do not support his words that he uses in his stump speeches…But hey, he has some funny quips, when he doesn’t know the answer.

right2bright on January 19, 2008 at 11:35 AM

HE chose sides in this fight… and my side is the one who wants NO religion to CONTROL things…

Romeo13 on January 19, 2008 at 10:48 AM

Romeo13, +1

Entelechy on January 19, 2008 at 1:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4