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
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
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.
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: « 1 2 [3] 4 »
Are you pro-marriage amendment? Sorry if you said up-thread, having made it through all the way yet.
Spirit of 1776 on January 18, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Michigan, Utah, Nevada, Wyoming.
But heed no attention to anything north of the Mason-Dixon Line, Fred would rather be in South Carolina than accept the votes of those states that aren’t conservative enough for him to waste his time in.
BKennedy on January 18, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Not for the right reasons. Huck justifies marriage and life using his religion. Thats all good, but they are not the real reasons why they need to be on the platform. Human life is in the tradition of our founding, that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights that can not be subdued by fellow man. In addition, an affirmation of marriage, is a recognition of the American family as the fundamental source of our prosperity. It praises the individuals for making the society work, not the state, following in the traditions of the founding. The fact that Huckabee does not understand this troubles me. It is not enough to say marriage and life are moral and justify them with Christianity, he needs to associate the positions with America
RightisRight on January 18, 2008 at 4:03 PM
What I really support (and think is easily passable) is a clear declaration that the federal constitution does not require same-sex marriage. This is, unfortunately, necessary to prohibit judges from assuming and using authority that they do not possess.
But I also support an amendment explicitly defining marriage at the federal level, though I acknowledge that this would be tough to pass.
medguy on January 18, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Now if we could just convince Michelle to let us have a small tip jar icon in the corner of our posts so we could get a little jingle for appreciated posts.
Speakup on January 18, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Ya know when you see a website listing the candidate as (R) Huckabee? It should instead be (Z) for Zero…
electric-rascal on January 18, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.
MB4 on January 18, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Fredfans, here is the questioner of the day, courtesy of Newsweek.
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/01/17/the-most-colorful-campaign-question-i-ve-ever-heard.aspx
Another reason why this Chicago transplant loves Fred’s southern fried Reaganism.
http://www.fred08.com
redneck hippie on January 18, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on January 18, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Thanks for elaborating. I’m actually really curious about that. Meaning it seems from my vantage point that a FMA would cede marriage as an institution to the domain of the state, when it obviously precedes and transcends the state.
If one believes that marriage is a covenant with a spouse and God, I don’t see where the state is involved. If one believes that marriage is only a covenant with the spouse, I still don’t see where the state is involved. In short, I don’t follow the reasoning to involve the state. Can you shed light on that?
Spirit of 1776 on January 18, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Who is this guy? Are they going to come out with a Huckabee watch?
He is the Spiro Agnew of this election…
right2bright on January 18, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Oh, I could never hope to obfuscate at the level that Mr. Huckabee does.
Look, I admire your loyalty and tenacity, but can’t you see that Huckabee is not a consistent candidate? Can’t you see that his words and past actions contradict each other? Can’t you see that he changes his positions almost on a daily basis? Can’t you see that he’s hopelessly unpresidential? Can’t you see how easy it would be for the Dems to tear him to shreds if he can’t even get most conservatives to give him the benefit of the doubt anymore? Can’t you see how he uses his religion as a political tool? Can’t you see how passive-aggressive and faux innocent he is every time he does something nasty to another candidate?
Can’t you see Huckabee for who he is? It’s painfully obvious. You might be able to defend him, just barely, on this one issue. But the guy is a walking timebomb. He’s going to implode, and it may very well destroy the conservative movement when he does–if he somehow manages to become the nominee and party leader, which I pray never happens.
aero on January 18, 2008 at 4:22 PM
So, this line in the Declaration of Independence clearly recognizes that we were CREATED, not by a monkey EVOLVING, but by a higher being. Furthermore is clearly states that through the Creator they have the Unalienable Right to LIFE.
So is it going against this document, which was forged in order to create this new country, to clearly state in the Bill of Rights that we believe in God and that He has given each of us the Right to Life?
Or are you going to interpret these living documents to say that a Creator only considers you a human once you are born?
Your choice, be a liberal or be a conservative. A true conservative recognizes the truth in the original words, but sometimes recognizes that these truths must be spelled out in 2nd grade English so liberals and public school students can understand them.
I’m not a Huck fan, I’m sure some of you know that already, but I understand what he is saying here and it’s nothing more than putting the beliefs of the founders into words that liberals can understand. Sadly, to make it truly understood by them it would need to be peppered with four letter words, so even this may be to high level for them.
Fuzzball on January 18, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Re: the update: Fred proves that he is as incompetent on this as most of you.
medguy on January 18, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Wow any idiot that thinks the Constitution is a living and breathing document and thus changes when the culture socially changes does not deserve to be in the running. This should be Huck’s nail in the coffin. It is beyond despicable. I would rather die now than vote for Huck.
CABE on January 18, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Easy solution for the energy crisis:
Figure out how to wire Huckabee supporters - all that spinning could generate a lot of electricity.
Laura on January 18, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Equality may perhaps be a right, but no power on earth can ever turn it into a fact.
- de Balzac
MB4 on January 18, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Huckabee supporters are so dim it wouldn’t even be worth it to harness their energy. If Huckabee gets 2nd in SC I swear I’ll vomit.
CABE on January 18, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Way to win friends and influence people.
Thompson is right to make this a political issue. If nothing else, Huckabee’s word choice shows that he is not well-versed in conservative thought.
Slublog on January 18, 2008 at 4:39 PM
I would like to see The High Reverend Huckster get first in S.C. to block the McCainiac.
MB4 on January 18, 2008 at 4:40 PM
If I understand you correctly, then we should make a distinction between marriage and civil marriage.
Marriage exists independent of government. But the government might have a general interest in encouraging this particular relationship. Hence the origin of civil marriage.
For example, I think that the state has an interest in encouraging the marriage union as a long-term partnership because it is in that environment that our societal values can best be imparted to posterity.
Or, another example: I believe the government might have an interest in encouraging a two-person partnership, and discouraging a more-than-two person marriage.
This is the purpose of civil marriage, and it is this aspect that people usually refer to when speaking of the relationship between law and marriage.
medguy on January 18, 2008 at 4:41 PM
duh duh dah duh duuuuhh dah duh duh
Fred 08
Buttercup on January 18, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Which reminds me of this
bnelson44 on January 18, 2008 at 4:43 PM
…or when in fact he’s clueless.
Entelechy on January 18, 2008 at 4:45 PM
I would like to see The High Reverend Huckster get first in S.C. to block the McCainiac.
MB4 on January 18, 2008 at 4:40 PM
You’ve come to your senses!
God truly does work miracles!
HaraldHardrada on January 18, 2008 at 4:45 PM
More of a Sun Tzu strategy and less Clausewitz
bnelson44 on January 18, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Incidentally, I’m not trying to win friends. That would be a nice supplement to my participation, but not one by which I live or die.
I realize that there are many Fred supporters on this site. But it would be terribly inconsistent of me to criticize folks in this thread for making an argument, and then not do so when Fred does the same.
My view is that I disagree with anyone trying to spin this statement to mean something it does not. That includes the original poster, and that includes the almighty Fred Thompson, my former Senator.
medguy on January 18, 2008 at 4:46 PM
MB4, all thats needed to block McCain are a series of video clips of McCain, mavericking his way into media hero status.
Laura on January 18, 2008 at 4:47 PM
There are many arguments against both your statement. You just have to Believe!
Entelechy on January 18, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Fred wakes up in SC, is it too late.
bnelson44 on January 18, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Know what? I’m actually with you on that. Because while McCain with a win in SC McCain just might take the nomination, Gomer never will.
Typhoon on January 18, 2008 at 4:49 PM
I would rather vote for a reincarnated Karl Marx than Huck. I would rather vote for Karl Malone than John McCain. And now I have a strange craving for Carl’s Jr.
CABE on January 18, 2008 at 4:54 PM
The soft bigotry of low expectations.
MB4 on January 18, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Yeah, I understand that the state has a reason to encourage marriage because it encourages two-parent families. I believe the statistics show less crime, highly standard of living, etc accompany that. One can make the argument that that would fall under the auspices of general warfare, domestic tranquity, etc.
My concern is that once the state is given power to define it, there is nothing to stop them from altering it whatever pleases the populace at a given moment. That could lead to a time/place when civil marriage and religious/other marriage are opposed. If I understand correctly, that is actually the argument right now against gay marriage. What I am failing to see is how when the state has moved in a direction contrary to the majority of the population’s wishes, that then the response is to give the state more power. I image the counter-argument is that in amending the framework it would lessen the power of the state by restriction, but it still moves the whole category into the domain of the state and out of the shared domain marriage is in now.
Assuming for a moment that task is also the domain of the state, what if a some time it decided that education - it takes a village in other words - is the better environment in which to impart, or indoctrinate a societal value system?
I don’t mean to pin this on you, but the whole thing seems self-opposing to me.
Spirit of 1776 on January 18, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Except that csdeven would say “gibotry”. In thy honor, csdeven!
Entelechy on January 18, 2008 at 4:58 PM
civil marriage and religious/other marriage are opposed [to each other].
I guess it’s time to start proof-reading. argh.
Spirit of 1776 on January 18, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Will no one rid me of these damn meddlesome gibots?
- csdeven
MB4 on January 18, 2008 at 5:03 PM
SECOND LOOK AT CARLA GUGINO!
Frozen Tex on January 18, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Tuco will shoot them for you.
Tuco on January 18, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Yeah, but what does Chuck Norris think?
gstrickler on January 18, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Channeling Madeline Albright…
The term “equality” is one of the most annoying.
Anyone who aims for it, deserves it! - - Entelechy
Entelechy on January 18, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Tuco will shoot him to.
Tuco on January 18, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Rasmussen Daily National Presidential Tracking Poll
Huckabee: 22% (-1)
McCain: 21% (+1)
Romney: 19% (+1)
Thompson: 12% (nc)
Giuliani: 10% (-1)
Trends:
Huckabee: slowly trending up
McCain: holding gains
Romney: recovering losses
Thompson: not going anywhere
Giuliani: not going anywhere
bnelson44 on January 18, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Is there two Huckabee’s running out there? The one on the website that looks good, and the one in person that sounds horrible.
The guy does not even know what he believes. He reminds me so much of Vice President Ted Matthews from “My Fellow Americans”
Let’s vote for someone that knows how they actually knows what is going on, Fred Thompson!
ConservativePartyNow on January 18, 2008 at 5:14 PM
For a creature who hardly sleeps, Tuco, you’re pretty rested. That’s what I see when I look at you today.
Entelechy on January 18, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Conservatively speaking, the state already does possess the power to define marriage however it wishes. That is how civil marriage came to be in the first place. Prior to the mess caused by Goodridge v. Mass., legislatures possessed the authority to change civil marriage by simple majority vote. I don’t see how amending the Constitution defining marriage is ceding power to the government. Rather, it is the people asserting their legitimate power through a legitimate process.
Perhaps I have misunderstood, but the state cannot make such a decision under our current framework (i.e., the decision to remove children from the family framework). But, as nasty as this might sound, the “people” could do this through Constitutional amendment if there was enough support for it. I’m not going to call that a flaw of our Constitution; but it is a fact. Incidentally, I suppose I should indicate that I in no way endorse the “it takes a villiage” policy spoken of.
medguy on January 18, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Neither.
What he (probably) will say as an out is,
“No, what I meant was…….** (and then to continue to wing it from there)
**just scramble whatever jello-colored alphabet soup words you can dream up and you have Huckabee’s entire life and political policy.
::
::
What I’m wondering is, should we start the Jim Pinkerton intervention process now or later?
I have been really worried about J. Pinkerton lately. What is he thinking now that he is on the inside looking out?
What do the internal polls show?
Will he get his job back from FNC?
Did he think about this before he jump in?
Is he getting enough exercise spinning stories?…..
…these and many other things have been really on my mind regarding Pinkerton and I’m really worried.
Mcguyver on January 18, 2008 at 5:20 PM
When Huckabee started up I have to admit I liked and appreciated the fact that he was an unashamed Christian. I also hoped he has grown more conservative since his years as Governor of Arkansas. He hasn’t, he is still a Democrat and just about every time he opens his mouth he spouts some more of his real socialist progressive agenda. Honestly folks Hillary is slightly more conservative than Huckabee is. There isn’t any real freedom in Huckabeeland. He’d ban smoking (OK, it’s a nasty habit) and then make everyone get on a diet (I could lose a few more pounds but I’d hate a fat fee) and then he starts talking about his living breathing constitution’s 2nd amendment really only means hunting shotguns and rifles. Huckabee isn’t any kind of conservative and I can’t see that he really is any kind of Republican. Oh, and with all this lying he may not even be a good Christian! Just my opinion but take a long hard look at what this guy would unleash on the nation. Never trust what a politician says or does when he wants your vote, look at how he’s acted in the past when he’s just been elected.
Buzzy on January 18, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Now your last chance to buy CHEAP Huckabee futures.
Easy money folks.
HaraldHardrada on January 18, 2008 at 5:29 PM
You’re right about not trusting a politician on anything but his past record, Buzzy. That’s why all Republicans (and anybody else who cares about the future of this great nation) should hand Juan McCain his sombrero, hand Huckleberry his dead squirrel, and send them both packing back to their friends in Mexico.
AZCoyote on January 18, 2008 at 5:29 PM
Ah. I see. That’s where we differ. I think the state recognizes marriage as opposed to defining it. What you are saying, in essence, is that you want to define what the state can recognize. That makes sense, I follow that logic. Thanks for this exchange, I have a better understanding of the position of those that support a FMA now.
Sorry, what I meant by that analogy is that marriage is acknowledge by the state for it’s own purposes. You cited the generational transfer of societal values, I was just trying to say the recognition of marriage then becomes obsolete (and subject to variation) when it no longer serves the purpose the state acknowledges it for. I apologize, I know that’s esoteric because it is unlikely, but it is possible. The state already has assumed that power in education, NCLB, etc to dictate the values the state deems important.
Spirit of 1776 on January 18, 2008 at 5:34 PM
If it is at all possible for a politician to be an even worse representation of all things “Arkansan” than Bill Clinton, then that politician is Mike Huckabee. Clinton was (and is) a crook, a thug, and a con artist - but he’s no dummy. Huckabee, however, is quite the “village idiot” - and President of the United States is not a job that is well suited to an “on the job training” approach.
uncivilized on January 18, 2008 at 5:37 PM
Why, do they allow you to short them? The price only goes down from here.
Hollowpoint on January 18, 2008 at 5:47 PM
HUCKASCHMUCK ™ has a future?
Frozen Tex on January 18, 2008 at 5:50 PM
“President of the United States is not a job that is well suited to an “on the job training” approach.”
— uncivilized on January 18, 2008 at 5:37 PM
Exactly right. Fred recently stated that foreign policy is not conducive to a candidate using “training wheels.”
He who surges last, wins.
Huckabee supporters would do well to revisit another fairy tale (not the Huckabee candidacy, which is truly made up as it goes along). No, they should revisit “The Emperor Has No Clothes.” Find out who’s Flipping for Fred today at:
http://www.fred08.com
redneck hippie on January 18, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Optimist/pessimist, half full/half empty theory…
Entelechy on January 18, 2008 at 5:50 PM
I know just where do we buy that stock. The New York Bigot Exchange.
csdeven on January 18, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Hollowpoint on January 18, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Put your money where your mouth is!
HaraldHardrada on January 18, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Then talk to me about it on sunday
HaraldHardrada on January 18, 2008 at 6:00 PM
Huckabee will win in SC over Mcvain. I think he is explaining the Declaration of Independence and the Consitution which so many in our elcted offices DO NOT FOLLOW Lawmakers have many many laws and interpreted many laws without backing it on the Roe vs Wade, eminent domain and so many it is hard to list. They do not follow God’s laws and natures laws which our founding fathers put at the forefront of how our countries laws were made
bones47 on January 18, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Someone asked why HuckaBigots fried squirrel comment wasn’t his “Howard Dean” moment.
That is because many of the people who support him are just as stupid and vacuous as he is.
Dean fell apart because normal people recognized him for what he is. If normal intelligent people were supporting him, they’d be leaving in droves.
HuckaBigot can say any kind of outrageous crap he wants as long as his supporters are mostly gullible lemmings. The best thing all of us could do is become Huckabee supporters. We have brains and credibility and when we decide he has crossed the line, the lemmings will too and they’ll follow us to another candidate.
You want proof of that? Just look at how blissfully ignorant the HuckaBigot supporters here are. Has anyone met one single rational Huck supporter yet? If we all became Huck supporters, gained the respect of the lemmings, they’d leave Huck the minute we did.
csdeven on January 18, 2008 at 6:01 PM
csdeven, others may leave, but you will still be there, and it’s a good thing.
Entelechy on January 18, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Bryan, it might behoove you to read the Volokh Conspiracy link. It’s a pretty substantial attack on your argument, by a respected guy.
Vanceone on January 18, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Was Jesus a founding father?
Igor R. on January 18, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Volokh’s post is fine if you don’t take Huckabee’s unique history into account on this. I think we should.
Bryan on January 18, 2008 at 6:07 PM
You’re probably right, but man, that would be tough duty, even for a little while. A guy/gal would have to go against his or her natural revulsion. Pal around with Harald’s ilk? Damn!
a capella on January 18, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Tried to buy Huck’s futures, but was first pandered to, then lied to, cheated out of all of my money, and then discovered he had no future. Yup, just another typical Huck story.
Igor R. on January 18, 2008 at 6:08 PM
SC will not be the end of the line, and it might not be a bad thing if your guy wins it. There’s way more to this than your deep wish. “Brokered convention” is also a likely outcome. This is long not over. Sunday is just a day away, and just one day.
Entelechy on January 18, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Huck is just another word for nothing left to lose.
Igor R. on January 18, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Back at ya darling.
csdeven on January 18, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Just think, afterward you could go undercover in any organization around.
csdeven on January 18, 2008 at 6:15 PM
It’s time to open a can of FRED on this double talking huckster. GO FRED GO!
HotAirExpert on January 18, 2008 at 6:18 PM
I have yet to hear one make a sane debate of it.
All I’ve seen are demagogues who use too many exclamation points who seem to think that ‘Conservative’ means ‘Christian,’ don’t understand the principles involved in Conservatism, and are more concerned with shouts of piety (both religious and political), cheap, empty shots at other candidates, or endless thump-thump-thumps on the cover of the Old King James.
I’m Southern Baptist, son of a man who was ordained, grew up in the church and firmly a conservative Christian. But I reject Hucklebee, and his fervent followers are really just an embarassment that reinforce the stereotypes of small-minded ignorance.
snickelfritz on January 18, 2008 at 6:23 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
Explain. Do you justify the federal government’s involvement in marriage only as a defense against a state’s right to define it on their own? Or do you generally favor federal government expansion?
I understand where you are going with this, but I wonder if the principle is worth the constitutional heart-ache.
Jaibones on January 18, 2008 at 6:33 PM
Pretty much me, too. Not really southern, though.
Frozen Tex on January 18, 2008 at 6:34 PM
See? That’s what I mean– you can’t debate, you can’t convince, you can’t try to win me over to your side. You just give a sulky little answer that does nothing to persuade. If you truly support Huckabee you’re doing nothing but drive people away by being a hyperactive fool. Can you convince, using facts, history, and the record? Or will you just come in with snarky shots about how we’ll all go the Huck’s big revival meeting when the person we’re rooting for fails?
The real question is this: Can you convince me of the virtues of your candidate in something other than religiousity? Because weighing him on issues and personal character, he comes up lacking.
snickelfritz on January 18, 2008 at 6:41 PM
I am concerned that a brokered convention could mean Rudy becomes the anointed one.
He is the next George Bush if the RNC has their way about it.
Speakup on January 18, 2008 at 6:59 PM
Here’s a tax cut idea - cut the F$#$(*ng federal gas tax. Immediate impact on the poor and middle class. Wouldn’t hurt to compel the state fuel tax to be cut, too.
mksmithwriter on January 18, 2008 at 7:14 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
I don’t support the broadening of the federal government. But amending the federal constitution would not necessarily do this. In any event, there is nothing anti-federalist about constitutional amendments. My preference would be that the states would be able to legislate marriage as they had been able to do prior to the new-judicial age we are now under.
But now I believe that the only way to ensure that the states can legislate marriage as they have in the past is to write it into the federal Constitution. We are headed toward judicially mandated same-sex marriage if we don’t do that. And probably sooner rather than later.
Appointing “strict-constructionist” jurists is not a sufficient strategy to curb the tide of judicial activism. Exhibit A is the fact that 5 of the 7 justices in the Roe. v. Wade majority were Republican appointees. Exhibit B is the fact that all five of the judges who reaffirmed Roe in Casey v. Planned Parenthood were Republican appointees (including two Reagan appointees and one HW Bush appointee). Exhibit C is the fact that in Lawrence v. Texas, four of the six justices in the majority and concurring were Republican appointees. I could go on.
Republicans frankly have a terrible record appointing “strict constructionists.” This is because it is manifestly too difficult to know what a justice will do once he no longer has any accountability (i.e., when he gets life tenure). This is why I support certain constitutional amendments.
medguy on January 18, 2008 at 7:22 PM
A desperate man will treat most things valued with contempt. In Hucks case his insurrection extends to his own party, solid conservative beliefs, his political peers, currently it’s the constitution and ultimately (if it is not apparent already) the American people. When he lies the way he does, when he wings the primary process in the hope that he won’t be put to task on his weak liberal policy positions/record, when he treats voters to potty humor instead of insightful wisdom befitting a future POTUS, sirens should be sounding loud and clear that this “man” is a mockery to not only the principles laid down by our forefathers, he is a mockery to our whole nation.
Desperate sycophants treat others with the same contempt Hucks displays daily. Be very very very alarmed conservative voters, Hucks has shown to treat most things with contempt including himself. Never have I seen such a conservative candidate embellish, plot, confuse and as others have expressed here obfuscate so much and treat the American voter with such disregard the way he does.
If conservative voters cannot see Hucks for the sheister that he is, then be prepared to be endlessly stupefied by him. The way he’s behaving, he’ll soon be holding Christ in contempt (if he hasn’t already by using Christ’s name for personal gain), and telling the public at large that Islamist are a misunderstood bunch and that Mohamed is a prophet we can all aspire to. Heck lets include some of his suras into the constitution while we’re at it so as to not upset his radical followers - who would by their way have us all enslaved, heavily taxed or dead in a nanosecond.
ousia on January 18, 2008 at 7:22 PM
FTFY.
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on January 18, 2008 at 7:37 PM
I always thought marriage was an institution between a man and a woman under the eys of their god..
Thusly, the first amendment would preclude all legislation about marriage.
I never understood where a secular government could rightfully interfere with the sacred union.
TheSitRep on January 18, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Neither the human life amendment or the marriage amendment will get out of the Congress and go to the states. In the case of the marriage amendment the GOP is swimming against a tide that has changed opinions about homosexual relationships over the past 40 years. Based on the way opinions breakdown by age group the trend is likely to continue.
You can’t stop gay people from living together. Stopping them from legally committing to each other doesn’t make other marriages stronger. A higher priority for defending marriage would be to reduce divorces–or have a marriage test similar to getting a driver’s license. At least stop Britney Spears from getting married any more.
dedalus on January 18, 2008 at 7:42 PM
SC Poll: Survey USA: McCain 31, Huck 27, Mitt 17, Fred 16.
bnelson44 on January 18, 2008 at 7:43 PM
I actually agree with your point directionally. I think marriage is between two people and should be mediated by a religious group. If a religious group marries gays, then the state’s job should be to just process the paperwork. Let families and churches decide whether to “endorse” a marriage. Let the government protect the borders and fix the bridges, and whatever else we give them $3 trillion dollars for.
dedalus on January 18, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »