Huckabee and the Constitution - Amend to meet God's Standards

[lealdragon]

<p>He’s entitled to run, but he’s not qualified to be a leader of a diverse nation if he wants to impose his views on the rest of the country.</p>

<p>I’m not a Romney supporter, but I don’t see Romney trying to make us all Mormon.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>"He’s entitled to run, but he’s not qualified to be a leader of a diverse nation if he wants to impose his views on the rest of the country.</p>

<p>I’m not a Romney supporter, but I don’t see Romney trying to make us all Mormon"</p>

<p>That’s what the election is for. I’m not supporting either man. I think Huckabee is waaaaaay too liberal. Aside from his religion, the left would probably be happy with how he governs.</p>

[janieblue]

<p>I agree he’s entitled to believe anything he wants to, and he’s entitled to tell us everything he believes. As President (cough cough), he would NOT be able to amend the Constitution. But, yeah, he can talk about it to his heart’s content. I expect he’ll soon drop out of this race, anyway.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>

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 is completely right that the Constitution should be amended to reflect the will of the people regardless of what that will is. The problem wiht the Constitution today is that a bunch of unelected justices imposed their personal opinions and created a three month right to kill an unborn child. Roe v. Wade has been upheld approxiamtely 40 times (I think) by the Supreme Court. The only way to fix that error is to amend the Constitution. If the amendment does not pass, that is the will of the people and should be followed and it would end the debate.</p>

[janieblue]

<p>

Aside from his religion, the left would probably be happy with how he governs.

</p>

<p>I don’t think so. First, there’s the bible issue, and it goes on from there. He wants to overturn Roe v Wade (don’t know too many on the left who would be happy with that). There’s his whole homophobia thing (again, related to the Bible, and I don’t know too many on the left who would agree with him there). He basically has no foreign policy experience. He thinks climate change is a “spiritual issue.” He supports drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. He supports Bush’s agenda in Iraq. </p>

<p>I don’t know. I guess I could go on, but I don’t know too many people on the left who would “be happy with how he governs,” based on just the above.</p>

[gottaloveucla]

<p>For Washdad</p>

<p>

Mike Huckabee announced Tuesday a plan to block immigrants hailing from terror-sponsoring nations – one of the hardest stances in the Republican presidential race that could incidentally lead to restricting immigrants from Cuba.

</p>

<p>[Huckabee</a> proposes ban on immigrants from terror nations - 01/16/2008 - MiamiHerald.com](<a href=“http://www.miamiherald.com/news/florida/story/381015.html]Huckabee”>http://www.miamiherald.com/news/florida/story/381015.html)</p>

<p>Nice way to play to rednecks in the Old South.</p>

<p>‘‘Every one of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 came here legally. Our government welcomed them in,’’ Huckabee said, according to the AP. However, all 19 hijackers hailed from countries that are not state terrorism sponsors: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates.</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>

The only way to fix that error is to amend the Constitution.

</p>

<hr>

<p>from [Ron</a> Paul 2008 › Issues › Life and Liberty](<a href=“ronpaul.com”>ronpaul.com) </p>

<p>

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life.

</p>

<hr>

<p>

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>I agree. We need a legal definition of life because, if an unborn baby is defined as a person, then the entire abortion debate is neutralized. The only reason there is a debate in the first place is that unborn babies are not recognized as human, just as blacks and women were, at one time, not recognized as ‘persons.’</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>huckabee seems like a smarter, slicker, wittier, more articulate bush.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>“huckabee seems like a smarter, slicker, wittier, more articulate bush.”</p>

<p>Only superficially. Huckabee is even less a conservative than Bush.</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>I don’t think someone who starts invasive, pre-emptive wars and spends huge amounts of $$, skyrocketing our national debt, is conservative. bush is conservative in name only; he is not a conservative at all.</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>Exactly. I understand that the election process is designed to allow us to choose, but certain attributes should be included in the job description, and if the candidate does not meet those BASIC requirements, should not be considered qualified for the position.</p>

<p>Would you hire someone to do your taxes who had no accounting skills? Would you let someone work on your car who had never looked under a hood?</p>

<p>Likewise, recognition of the diversity of our citizens, and respecting their right to freedom of religion, is just so basic, that anyone who does not, is really not qualified to be president. Freedom of religion and separation of church and state is one of the basic principles our country was founded on. Amendments are for redefining issues that change with the times, but the founding principles don’t change. A person qualified to be president would be someone who has respect for those founding principles.</p>

<p>All the other candidates are some variety of Christian, which means their core values would undoubtedly guide their decisions. I don’t have a problem with that at all and in fact think it’s probably a good thing. But only huckabee seems to want to impose his own flavor of dogma on others.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>“But only huckabee seems to want to impose his own flavor of dogma on others.”</p>

<p>where did you get that?</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>The original post!</p>

[garland]

<p>I know, I know, I am going to regret posting this, but what the hay.</p>

<p>Leal said:</p>

<p>

We need a legal definition of life because, if an unborn baby is defined as a person, then the entire abortion debate is neutralized.

</p>

<p>And I disagree. I actually *do *think that an unborn baby is a person. However, that doesn’t mean another person can be mandated to carry and support that unborn person within her own body. So define how you like, the sticking point to me and many others is what we force someone else into doing, against her will.</p>

<p>so I am actually taking a position which will annoy people on both sides…hence my regrets in advance for posting this…</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>That’s ok. I see your point, and it summarizes the whole argument: which has precedence, the right to the unborn baby’s life, or the right of the woman to not have to support that unborn baby with her own body?</p>

<p>We’re not talking about the right of the unborn baby to life vs the right of the woman to life. It boils down to the right to life vs the right to convenience, really.</p>

<p>imo, life trumps convenience. </p>

<p>The 2 issues are just not equal. Life weighs more than convenience.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>Leal, that’s not what the original post says.</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>OP says:</p>

<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>I’d say amending the Constitution based on what SOME people consider “God’s law” is imposing his religion.</p>

<p>huckabee speaks as though belief in the bible as the ‘word of God’ is a given. He doesn’t seem to have respect for those who don’t accept the bible as being from God (or even maybe don’t believe in God at all).</p>

<p>Most of the other candidates probably believe in the bible (to some degree) but at least have enough respect for those that don’t, that they don’t try to amend the Constitution based on the bible.</p>

<p>That would be like Romney trying to amend the Constitution based on the Book of Mormon! How do you think people would like that?</p>

<p>(Incidentally, huckabee also speaks of a ‘Living God’ but all I see is a book.)</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>“And I disagree. I actually do think that an unborn baby is a person. However, that doesn’t mean another person can be mandated to carry and support that unborn person within her own body. So define how you like, the sticking point to me and many others is what we force someone else into doing, against her will.”</p>

<p>I agree with this completely. Heavy heartedly, but I do agree. Sometimes part of being a person of principle is being honest about the consequences of the principles that you hold. I believe a fetus is a person, but I am pro choice. Although not for myself and I do not vote on the issue.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>“I’d say amending the Constitution based on what SOME people consider “God’s law” is imposing his religion.”</p>

<p>That’s not what he said either. Besides, any Constitutional amendment will be based on the opinions of only some people, it just depends upon what the reason for the amendment would be. Imposing his religion would be forcing everyone to become Catholic or Scientologist. Plenty of non-religious people don’t believe in abortion and even more don’t support gay marriage.</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>What’s not what he said? Please clarify.</p>

<p>

it just depends upon what the reason for the amendment would be.

</p>

<p>Ah, I see the misunderstanding. By ‘imposing his religion’ I don’t mean necessarily forcing everyone to be Christian (though some Evangelicals do, unapologetically, have that agenda). I mean having the REASON for the amendment be religious (and based on HIS religion) instead of what’s representative of the will of the people as a whole.</p>

<p>Hope that clarifies my point.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>“Hope that clarifies my point”</p>

<p>It does. With the caveat that it would only be HIS reason, not necessarily the reason of the repersentatives and voters who might support an amendment for reasons of their own.</p>