Huckabee: The Constitution Should Be Amended To Conform To The Word Of God

Mike Huckabee's dinner order:

I'll have the violation of church and state for my entree, with a side of invasion of privacy and civil liberties, please.

Yes, let us all praise his outright lunacy.

Amen, brother.

This is the same sort of thing we CRITICIZE in groups like the Taliban, the mullahs of Iran, etc.

I agree with douglasq, it is the same invasion of government that Sharia law affects on many Islamic nations' governments. We can see where all that has gone... it would be just as bad as the Spanish Inquisition if we lived in a theocracy. I think he is coming through Chicago some time soonish, I am going to show up to his "event" with a sign protesting his outright assault on our Constitution.

douglasq, don't get me wrong. I believe the guy's a nut and we should all stand up against this. But what he expresses has been going on for some time and we have politicians and judges in place with his same philosophy, they just don't say it in so many words. My only point was that at least Huckabee is up-front about his intentions (to some degree) and says what he wants to do - which is to basically shred the Constitution. The man can and should run for office based on whatever issues he wants. In the end, I just hope the American people have enough sense not to vote for him.

It is amazing to me that as we confront religious extremism in its worst, most violent forms many people react by doing the same thing as the enemy - becoming more fundamentalist in their views, forcing religion into public policy, torturing their enemies, wrapping themselves up in the flag and asking for God's help in the righteous struggle for freedom

My only point was that at least Huckabee is up-front about his intentions (to some degree) and says what he wants to do - which is to basically shred the Constitution.

Which, as George Bush taught us, is just a goddamned piece of paper.

At least this guys is honest and up-front with his ambitions. I can respect that more than some of the others who would want to change the nation's laws to reflect their religious beliefs but not tell us that's what they're doing.

Right. That's what we have George W. Bush for. Just because Bush doesn't talk specifically about religion all the time, doesn't mean it isn't his driving influence in all the changes he has made, and all the constitutional principles he has violated. George Bush is doing the same thing as Huckabee...he just spins it differently.

The man used to eat squirrels that he fried up in a popcorn popper, I don't want someone like that as my next President. Period.

"When I was in college, we used to take a popcorn popper, because that was the only thing they would let us use in the dorm, and we would fry squirrels in a popcorn popper in the dorm room."

- Mike "Hyuck"-abee

Source: MSNBC

Maybe that's the plan...

I believe a Christian Theology if not radically enforced would be a great society to live in.

Perhaps if God was actually physically ruling the place, then yes. But if mankind were in charge, then it would be a huge mess. God's word would be twisted and amended for financial and political reasons. Actually, it would be just like it is now, but someone else gets to interpret the Bible for you. Isn't that why America was founded in the first place?

If this is what Huckabee is all about, then I will vehemently oppose him.

Okay, after stomping around the house, swearing like a sailor (thank God no one's home to see that), I'm feeling better now.

This is...wrong. There's really no other way of saying it. It's completely incorrect.

The problem with Huckabee is that he seems to never remember what job he's looking to get. He's trying to be the PRESIDENT. The guy who is supposed to represent ALL of America's people. And, I hate to burst his bubble, but not every one in America is Christian.

You know, back when the Constitution was being made, there were some messed up parts--the 3/5th stuff, that kind of thing. But, that idea of seperation of church and state? That was a good idea. That's one we should keep.

Huckabee: the Theologist in a thin-disquise, who would turn the country into Saudi-Arabia with a different God and less funky headwear.

I hate to burst his bubble, but not every one in America is Christian.

He's an evangelical, he believes that it's his job to convert everyone. I see this as him being true to his beliefs; can't fault the guy for that.

No F'n way he should be elected to public office, but you gotta respect his integrity.

I wouldn't go as far as to call it "integrity," but I get what you mean.

It's one thing for Huckabee to believe that his personal choice of religion trumps everyone else's freedom to worship in their own way. That's just evangelism, and he's entitled to his beliefs.

But Huckabee is running for an office whose most critical duty is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. He is declaring that he will betray this duty.

That's not evangelism. That's treason.

But Huckabee is running for an office whose most critical duty is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. He is declaring that he will betray this duty.

Just to play devil's advocate, that's technically incorrect.

he's not going to violate the Constitution. He's simply going to change it to make what would previously be violations of it perfectly legally acceptable.

he's not going to violate the Constitution. He's simply going to change it to make what would previously be violations of it perfectly legally acceptable.

That's a fine line you are treading there, Jack.

This is a situation where your efforts to change the constitution are almost the same as undermining it. And if you are undermining it, you cannot uphold it.

"The guy who is supposed to represent ALL of America's people."

Apparently, he wants to only represent the portion of America's people that share his views and vote for him...

OTOH, I do agree with those giving him the back-handed compliment of at least being upfront with his, well, whatever you call it- Promises? Threats?

That's a fine line you are treading there, Jack.

Oh, rest assured that I know that. :-)

I meant my comment semi-sarcastically, which I hope the people who voted for it saw. That isn't a line I intend to ever approach.

Many base their morality on what the Bible says. My guess is that a Baptist Minister does.

The context does matter though. As it stands many are interpreting the statement as an across the board altering of the Constitution (not that he could even if he wanted to) to do away with the separation of church and state (a concept not actually in the Constitution but I digress) when what he could be talking about is wanting the marriage amendment or who knows what else.

While if I was advising him I would have told him phrasing it that way is a bad idea, but without knowing what he meant by it I'm not going to factor it.

Well, there is a problem with saying, "it's out of context because it could be him talking about the marriage amendment": the marriage amendment is un-Constitutional anyway. Either way, he's being, in essence, Unamerican.

If the marriage amendment was passed then it would be Constitutional because it would be part of the Constitution.

The point about context is that we don't know what he is talking about. I only brought up the marriage amendment because that is my guess is what prompted the response. For all I know I know he was talking about changing the Constitution the make Christanity the official religion of the United States.

The Government shouldn't be in the business of issuing any licenses other than Driver's. They should issue Civil Unions to both Christian's and Homosexuals and definately to Homosexual Christians. There needn't be a debate unless we create one. Ron Paul holds this position on "Gay Marriage" and I think it makes sense.
Sincerely,
The Whiz

Thanks the FSM that this one can never pass.

One would think Members of Congress have better things to do then worry about homosexuals. I mean, it's not like the economy isn't perfect and members of the US Military aren't dying......

I second the call for context. It sounded to me like he was probably talking about gay marriage or abortion or something, which would mean he wants to amend the constitution for those issues, not to amend it for all of Christian ideology. Without context you can't tell, though.

I second the call for context. It sounded to me like he was probably talking about gay marriage or abortion or something, which would mean he wants to amend the constitution for those issues, not to amend it for all of Christian ideology

No, gay marriage and abortion ARE also issues based on Christian ideology (and some other religions as well). No matter what context, we should not change the Constitution based on religious ideology.

No, gay marriage and abortion ARE also issues based on Christian ideology

Actually, believe it or not, there are non-Christians who wholeheartedly believe abortion is wrong (ie. murder, etc.).

But I see what you're saying. Nevertheless, I would much rather see this video in its proper context. Who knows what they could be talking about?

"But I see what you're saying. Nevertheless, I would much rather see this video in its proper context. Who knows what they could be talking about?"

Where I could see confusion or misinterpretation of the headline is- is Huckabee specifically referring to marriage and abortion in the Constitution (which I don't have a huge issue with regardless of whether I agree or disagree with Huckabee's views on these particular subjects), or to basically amending everything in the Constitution that is related to morality and the Bible (which at the extreme could be the whole dang thing.)

If he truly were going to say what he means why not go all the way and essentially say what he means - he would like to change our government from a Representative Democracy to a form of Representative Theocracy. Thats what it boils down to when you seek fundamental change to the nation's Constitution to mandate a particular religous views standards.

The ironic part is that Christ never called for government to enforce religious standards or to exclude people for religious reasons.

Fatwa a la Huckabee?

Fatwa a la Huckabee?

I will seriously stick my head in a toilet if history during any period of my life will be remembered as the "Huckafatwa Era."

Not to be picky, but that wasn't Iran....or were you being ironic?

Whoops my mistake, it was Sudan...but the point remains the same

Clinton was a believer and he did okay.

Clinton did not feel the need to shove his personal beliefs down the throat of every American.

He may be a religious man, but never did put his personal beliefs on display and before other considerations.

Clinton did not feel the need to shove his personal beliefs down the throat of every American.

That's right: not every American...

just one... who from all accounts was a willing participant!

I said beliefs, this is not a forum for bashing Clinton (who, BTW, was the only president in my lifetime to balance the budget).

Just thought your choice of words was a little unfortunate :)

Iraq was never a theocracy. Saddam Hussein's government was strictly secular.

Perhaps I should tattle on you Dennis, your behavior is not so nice today.

I am not for Huckabee, but let him run, okay?

And here's me mistakenly thinking that commenting on (mental) statements made by a candidate while running for President was actually engaging in the democratic process... even if people are making fun of him...

btw, If Romney said he would change the Constitution to reflect the tenets of Mormonism, I think people would go after him too.

Tom,

You wrote:

love Latin and personally encourage it's use on Newsvine, even when it's a non sequitur, like this: ignorantia legis non excusat!

Who will report you for unsportsman-like behavior?

Apple Annie,

Did you just delete me from your friend list?

Why don't you send me an email or a comment on my page Dennis if you have something to say to me?

Because I've already said it, right here, in the relevant conversation. I've also replied to you in your column where you just made the accusation that I was bullying you in comments 13.6 and 15.1 above, which is completely untrue.

Brandon, perhaps you'll find your answer here.

I do not see Romney forcing his faith and beliefs on all of us. I believe that Huckabee has thrust his faith and beliefs on me. I do not like that.

replytoj001

i love Latin and personally encourage it's use on Newsvine, even when it's a non sequitur, like this: ignorantia legis non excusat!

...which follows a lot of the post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning of late.

::cue rim shot::

- J

I do not see Romney forcing his faith and beliefs on all of us

i am afraid he will try to expand the faith based initiatives and promote advantageous scenarios where religious groups and cults can profit and prosper at the expense of the taxpayers.

AA:

Perhaps I should tattle on you Dennis, your behavior is not so nice today.

Darling, you're hardly one to get high and mighty about nice behavior.

tschreck:

i am afraid he will try to expand the faith based initiatives and promote advantageous scenarios where religious groups and cults can profit and prosper at the expense of the taxpayers.

I frankly don't know about that. While I like neither of them, Huckabee seems very fundamentally gung-ho about his religion, while Romney seems to co-opt it for political purposes on a more superficial level.

Jack-

im not sure of it either, but i do have friends and acquaintances inside and out of the mormon club who are honestly excited by the prospect of mitt becoming the president for EXACTLY those reasons. they tell me that it is his duty to the mormom "religion" to further "the doctrine"

maybe it is just a few wackos hoping, but it seems strongly embedded in the ethos of the "church" to use connections within itself to further its goals. maybe mitt will sell them out once he gets into office, but i'm not willing to take that chance..

what scares me worse than any terror cell is the notion of a mitt / huckabee ticket.

they tell me that it is his duty to the mormom "religion" to further "the doctrine"

Oh dear.

maybe mitt will sell them out once he gets into office, but i'm not willing to take that chance..

what scares me worse than any terror cell is the notion of a mitt / huckabee ticket.

Indeed. Terrorists can only do so much. The two top dogs of the United States can do far more damage.

[Huckabee] I'm not the least bit ashamed of my faith or the doctrines of it. I don't try to impose that as a governor and I wouldn't impose it as a president.

can i have an amen brother...

yeah right.

How can I be gracious and servile at the same time? How bout one or the other? :-)

How can I be gracious and servile at the same time? How bout one or the other? :-)

you could start by going to the kitchen and making me some pie!

Mareejanee, if you haven't worked out how to be graciously servile or servilely gracious by now you need serious help. I'm sure Huckabee could arrange an intervention for you!

you could start by going to the kitchen and making me some pie!

Doesn't Cash have a copyright on that?

Doesn't Cash have a copyright on that?

who?

i know of no such person..

I don't try to impose that as a governor and I wouldn't impose it as a president

I dont believe him.

Yes, he says he wont impose his religion, but many of his positions and statements entail doing exactly that. He also is saying to those who want to impose his religion on others that he is with them and will help them to amend the Constitution to it. He has to be misleading one group or the other.

Part of my point is that his assertion that we should amend the Constitution to make it reflects God's law as he sees it, dirctly contradicts his claim he would not impose his views on others.

You would have really hated it during Jefferson's tenure

It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.

IV,
Jefferson was a man racked by hypocrisy of his rhetoric and personal actions. Nobody said keeping a country together based on revolutionary principles is easy, but it's the power of the words they put in writing and left behind that we have to guide us as a nation to this day.

I believe in the power of the Constitution as it stands for the protection of each one of us from tyranny and religious persecution. I for one don't want to see it watered down for the sake of pandering to a political base, and make no qualms about it, Huckabee may indeed be a religious man, but he knows exactly where his message is landing.

You are so right, phree, so right.

. As you all know, that power belongs to the legislature.

No it doesn't. It belongs to the states, actually.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Which means Congress can propose, but can't amend directly. Whereas the States can, by calling a convention. Although I did omit the People, through conventions, who can override even the state legislatures.

Not that it will ever happen, of course. We're too busy watching American Idol or looking for phat loots in World of Warcraft.

He is radical Christian like a radical Muslim?

Since when did Huckabee declare fatwa on the Islamic world? Since when did Huckabee fund terrorist camps and madrassas?

I think that statement was a bit outlandish.

Since when did Huckabee declare fatwa on the Islamic world?

give him time and the oval office and you can be sure he will..

right after he goes after science and finishes off common sense.

give him time and the oval office and you can be sure he will..

right after he goes after science and finishes off common sense.

"Hmmm, I'll have the fatwa for dessert, please."

I'll have a low-fatwa and a side order of sharia.

I'm sure he understands the process to amend the Constitution. That doesn't mean as President he can't make it part of his agenda to push for changes. We also don't know what changes he is thinking of. There is no reason to think that any amendments he would consider have anything to do with church and state doctrine.

It is possible to propose amendments that bring the Constitution more in line with word of God without having anything to do with religion and be a good idea over all.

It is possible to propose amendments that bring the Constitution more in line with word of God without having anything to do with religion and be a good idea over all.

Then they'd also have to be in line with atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Satanists, etc. That is the problem with aligning the bible with the word of God. Not everyone believes that God's word is worth listening to.

True, but there are areas that the varying groups can agree upon and from which amendments can be formed (presuming it is necessary). In doing so to a Christian, it is bring it line with the Bible, to Muslim it is bringing in line with the Koran, to an atheist bringing in line with their sense of what is right. The automatic assumption that bringing that the phrase "bringing the Constitution in line with Bible" means excluding other groups is a foolish one since passing such an amendment means getting as many as possible to support it.

As I keep pointing out - it is a poor choice of wording easily attacked out of context. We don't know what is in response to or even the environment. Without that context it is virtually meaningless blather.

Rest assured that there's still a sizable number of us who are sane.