Huckabee: Amend Constitution to be in 'God's standard'

It is NOT un-American to propose amending the Constitution to get your policies implemented.

I think that doing it for what Huckabee is wanting would be the wrong thing, but it is actually VERY American to propose amending the Constitution to get your policies implemented. THAT is one of the major ways the FF envisioned us doing things....
 
Ag I don't think anyone is saying Amendments to the Constitution are bad. We get that they are part of our system. It's the fact that Husckabee sounds like he is wanting to establish some sort of theocracy, THAT'S the issue.
 
Ag - if the founders so badly wanted to put more God into the Constitution, they could have. they didn't.

using an American system (amendments) to push a horribly un-American policy (retroactively putting Huck's version of God into the constitution) is extremely un-American.

you can't dress up a pig in rabbit clothes and call it the easter bunny. even if he is a member of the party you so desperately want to win in November.
 
As long as it's not like the Warren Court amending the Constitution I'm not scared. Amending the Constitution the normal way is real, real tough. Theocracy amendments are doomed from Day One.

Let me digress to a point which concerns me. Why do people believe these pronouncements from Presidential candidates about things they can't do? Sometime it's issues like this where the President's political power is inadequate to make a legislative change which will never fly. Sometime it's something which is a state aor local issue and the Feds won't have any real role. And sometime it's something that politicians can't really fix like energy independence or job losses in the auto industry. I dismiss these claims out of hand.
 
The analogy to energy independence claims seems pretty good.

Dangerous, not as implementable, but as diversionary from a better approach.

Absolutely undoable, thus not really meant, mostly pandering to what folks seem to want to hear... the likely case.

And then, some of these people do believe some of these impossible proposals.
 
Why wasn't this the lead story on the nightly news for all the Republican hating liberal media sources?
rolleyes.gif


Huckabee is what he is,,, an evangelical which means that there are points on the dial where logic and fact must be superceded by faith. In my "Should I be afraid.." thread relating to Huckabee and others who have "God on their side."

Had Huckabee run a stelth candidacy like Bush did, saying this sort of looniness only behind closed doors he might have had a chance in this election. YOu have to however admire Huckabee's candor. Thankfully the more the country knows about Huckabee's "grand vision" on the religious side of the equation the more unelectable he becomes.

What's most interesting about Huckabee from a religious standpoint is he is SOOOOOOO much more Christlike than so many in the GOP {Christains" who think that helping the poor and downtrodden is a distant second to cutting their own taxes for additional consumption. Huckabee is a likeable guy whose base needs to hear this sort of stuff, but in trying to win the battle, the words will ultimately cause him to lose the war.

It will be interesting to see if Romney's victory cuts into McCain enoguh to make it a dead heat among the three GOP primary winners thus far?
 
Does anyone have any context to this storyor are we just running with the "sky is falling" attitude regariding this quote?

Look, everyone knows this guy is unelectible, primarily because he has so little cash. However, I very much welcome the idea of bringing God back into the USA. Lord knows we have been chasing him out much of the last 50 years to our detriment.

As far as those saying that "If the FF wanted to put God in the Constitution, they would have", I certainly hope you are smarter than that. The improtance of God was very strong in the minds of the FF. Leaving him out of the constitution was an unfortunate compromise along he lines of leaving out the criminalization of slavery.
 
Ag - your point seems to be that anything allowable by law, or any use of the system as it was setup, is "American". my view of "American" encompasses more than that, hence the disagreement.

so yes, under your view of what is "American", any amendment to the constitution is "American".
 
The Huckster needs to read the declaration before he goes off on a rant about including God in our founding documents and the principles of Who "we the people" receive our rights from.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
A'sD, we all know that the concepts in the Declaration of Independence are 180 degrees from how we are presently governed:

Rights that are inherently ours, as endowed by the Creator? Nope. Rights are given to us by the government. Hell, this is one of the most bassackwards things about our country -- folks ask all the time "really? Where is THAT right in the Constituion?", failing to understand that the Constitution does NOT give the people any rights -- it only gives the government certain powers, and specifies the narrow instances in which the rights of the people may be abridged. I don't just have the rights discussed in the Constitution -- I have ALL the rights not SPECIFICALLY abrogated by the Constitution. But again, we are bassackwards on this one.

The government derives its powers from the consent of the governed? Nope. Instead, we merely have those rights which the government agrees to bestow upon us and respect on any given day.

The servant has become the master.

That said, I will at least tip my hat to Huckabee for proposing an amendment, which is the legally appropriate way to go about his policy idea, instead of simply reading something into the Constitution that isn't there and pronouncing it to be law. I don't agree with amending the Constitution all willy-nilly, and certainly not for the matter proposed, but at least he's not proposing an end-around on it. That puts him way ahead of most others in the intellectual honesty crowd.
 
what an idiot. i wasn't voting for him anyways. i've never voted democrat, but so far this year i don't see any other way. but i sure as **** won't vote for that *****.
 
Brisket:

I think I remember you are an atty correct? It is my understanding that the 62-63 scotus decisions on removing school prayer and then total separation were based on a redefining of the word CHURCH from previous precedents. The word was redefined from meaning denomination to any religious activity. It would take some time but I think I can find the cites if you disagree. I would think it would be easier to overturn the scotus decision as opposed to amending the constitution.
 
Well, without derailing this thread, I disagree strongly with your characterization that it is the law of the land that public religious expression is banned. That is completely untrue.

So long as I am lawfully permitted to be there (I mean, I can't barge into any old classroom without being a trespasser), I can publicly voice any religious thought that I wish. I can stand in the capitol rotunda and do so; I can sign up to speak at City Council meetigns and do so; if I were a student, I could pray out loud in school (again, so long as I wasn't speaking out of turn, etc.). What is illegal, generally speaking, are AGENTS OF THE STATE making such pronouncements while acting in their capacity as agents of the state, or members of the public using mechanisms of the state to make such pronouncements so that it amounts to the state endorsing (as opposed to simply enabling) a particular religious belief.

There is not a single statute or case that bans prayer in schools. Not a single one. When there is free talking time (recess, lunch, etc. -- in other words, the only restrictions are to "time, place, and manner," not content), a kid can pray, proselytize, etc. all he/she wants. If kids are asked to give a presentation in class on "what is most important to me," the kid is absolutely free to stand up and put on a presentation about his/her faith, God, etc. (not that some overzealous administrator or teacher might not freak out over such a thing, or that some civil rights zealot might take offense and try to extend the restriction to such thing -- but those are actions of individuals, and do NOT reflect the current state of the law).

Further, I find the body of law to be reasonably consistent with the overriding theme of the Declaration and Constitution -- leave us the hell alone. Leave me to believe and worship as I please, and do not interfere with it. That also means that the government shouldn't interfere by favoring one faith over another (or even over the lack thereof).

Don't Tread on Me. We should have done more than just put that on a flag. We should have made it the first article of the Constitution.
 
[qutoe]My point is we didn't live in a Theocracy back then and the data would suggest a turning point in the moral and social standards with the spike in the graph starting in the mid to late 60's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top