<p>“[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards,” Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman."</p>
<p>Okey dokey</p>
<p>Uh, well. Let’s hope Huckabee fades away fairly quickly. I find him scary.</p>
<p>just a wee bit scary- after all, he was chosen by God ;)</p>
<p>I have a lot of respect for this position.</p>
<p>If you are honest about the fact that more states will eventually allow gay marriage or civil unions, and if you are honest about the fact that they are perfectly entitled to do so under the Constitution, and you believe (as most of the Republicans claim to) that this is a bad thing for the country, then the honest solution is to amend the Constitution.</p>
<p>That is a radical opinion, but it makes perfect sense, and you can argue against it head-on. That’s a luxury nowadays.</p>
<p>why dioes it make perfect sense to enmesh the Constituion and the Bible?</p>
<p>I am not Christian nor do I believe in God and I don’t want the Bible to be the standard by which my President makes decisions, thank you very much</p>
<p>Probably have to rewrite the Constitution to put God in there at all, since She was deliberately and explicitly left out.</p>
<p>It makes perfect sense that if you believe that the Bible is inerrant truth for all people, and the Constitution currently allows state governments to endorse abominations before God, then the Constitution ought to be changed.</p>
<p>He’s saying we ought to have a whole different kind of Constitution and a whole different kind of country. I think he’s as wrong as it is possible to be, but his argument is both intellectually honest and logical.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m with citygirlsmom on this. </p>
<p>Have you not heard of the separation of church and state? Clearly, Huckabee hasn’t. I certainly don’t want a president who makes his decisions based on what God tells him, either… We have one of those in office now, and you see where that got us. Huckabee (nor any president or presidential-hopeful) has no business amending the constitution based on what he thinks the Bible tells us. Gosh, that’s scary. He’s free to suggest that, of course, and my hope is that doing so will get him out of this election sooner, rather than later.</p>
<p>mini: Yes-- nice post. ;)</p>
<p>Some “strict constructionist”. 
(Though I wouldn’t mind if they added some references to the Spaghetti Monster…and his inerrant website.)</p>
<p>Have you not heard of the separation between the merit of a policy and the intellectual honesty and consistency of an argument?</p>
<p>Yes - very scary. Extremists who think we should all be ruled by their religious beliefs are terrifying whether they are Christian, Muslim or any other religion.</p>
<p>Hanna, well thought out and written. Thank you. It’s a version of my primary opinion about the Second Amendment. Since it is somewhat ambiguous in the language of the 21st century, either side could propose an amendment to bolster their position – either an unrestricted right of personal firearm ownership, or an absolute right for the government to restrict firearm ownership. Neither side has the political courage of their convictions to initiate such an amendment and so they go on and on arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a well-regulated pin.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, I admire Huckabee for at least not dipping and dodging around these issues like most politicians do. It’s a lot more honest, for example, than Clinton’s history of shifting non-positions on the Iraq war.</p>
<p>“Have you not heard of the separation between the merit of a policy and the intellectual honesty and consistency of an argument?”</p>
<p>I understand it quite well, thank you, and there is nothing consistent about claiming to be a “strict constructionist” as regards the Constitution and advocating changing its fundamental nature.</p>
<p>As to whether he is being “intellectually honest”, well, he’s first and foremost a politician, so enough said (I don’t hold that against him.)</p>
<p>Mini, you can be a “strict constructionist” and still think the amendments to the Constitution were, well, Constitutional. The process of change is embedded in the Constitution, and I do not think that changing it following due process makes one a nonconstructionist. </p>
<p>Using the Constitutional process to provide a legal definition of human life does not seem to me to fall clearly outside the range of the original document, either, while using it to define marriage does. In the end, the people, through the process defined for changing the Constitution, are the final arbiters of what belongs and what doesn’t. Even the Supreme Court can’t change that (as much as they might like to).</p>
<p>But to take this to the extreme – if you agree with what Huckabee wants to do, that means that the Bible should become our Constitution. We shouldn’t just add one or two amendments about things like the definition of marriage, but we should just adopt the entire Bible.</p>
<p>Old and New Testament? </p>
<p>And what about the Quran?</p>
<p>I’ll say it again. I am a liberal Democrat,but I love Huckabee. This should be the face of the new Republican Party. The Evangelicals have never gotten their agenda through although they were arguably the largest bloc of Republican voters. Reagan’s strategy of kowtowing to these lunatics was gonna have to backfire eventually.</p>
<p>Did I mention he was also attacking legal immigration? He said we should stop immigration from various Middle Eastern countries? Never believe it when people who say they don’t like illegal immigration say they are big fans of “legal” immigration. They just don’t like foreigners and minorities, period.</p>
<p>And “using the Constitutional process to provide a legal definition of human life” is simply the first step (or THE step?) in overturning Roe v Wade. </p>
<p>The problem with Huckabee is that he believes everything written in the Bible, and he thinks we should change the Constitution to reflect what the Bible tells us. Now that is one scary proposition. You can all it “intellectual honesty” all you like, and it’s fine with me if he believes all that-- just so long as he doesn’t become president or gets on the supreme court, or in any way gets in a power position to actually implement any of that. The best thing he can do is go back to Arkansas and the pulpit-- my opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But see, not everyone believes that the bible is the word of God.</p>
<p>“But see, not everyone believes that the bible is the word of God.”</p>
<p>But, see, this man does and is entitled to do so and is also entitled to run for president. If his views don’t match yours, don’t vote for him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cite, please?</p>
<p>EDITED: This isn’t part of his immigration policy on his Website.</p>