• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

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

T99

Well-known member
Huckabee: Amend Constitution to be in 'God's standards' David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Tuesday January 15, 2008


The United States Constitution never uses the word "God" or makes mention of any religion, drawing its sole authority from "We the People." However, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee thinks it's time to put an end to that.

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "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 -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

When Willie Geist reported Huckabee's opinion on MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Mika Brzezinski was almost speechless, and even Joe Scarborough couldn't immediately find much to say beyond calling it "interesting,"

Scarborough finally suggested that while he believes "evangelicals should be able to talk politics ... some might find that statement very troubling, that we're going to change the Constitution to be in line with the Bible. And that's all I'm going to say."

Geist further noted of Huckabee that if "someone without his charm," said that, "he'd be dismissed as a crackpot, but he's Mike Huckabee and he's bascially the front-runner."
 

Tex

Well-known member
T99 said:
Huckabee: Amend Constitution to be in 'God's standards' David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Tuesday January 15, 2008


The United States Constitution never uses the word "God" or makes mention of any religion, drawing its sole authority from "We the People." However, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee thinks it's time to put an end to that.

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "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 -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

When Willie Geist reported Huckabee's opinion on MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Mika Brzezinski was almost speechless, and even Joe Scarborough couldn't immediately find much to say beyond calling it "interesting,"

Scarborough finally suggested that while he believes "evangelicals should be able to talk politics ... some might find that statement very troubling, that we're going to change the Constitution to be in line with the Bible. And that's all I'm going to say."

Geist further noted of Huckabee that if "someone without his charm," said that, "he'd be dismissed as a crackpot, but he's Mike Huckabee and he's bascially the front-runner."

I would like to know just what he wants to change. One of the reasons we have freedom of religion is that the founders of the U.S. and their ancestors had "God" shoved down their throat by govts.--mostly monarchs, who believed they were God's leaders on earth and abused the power of gvt. and of religion for their own purposes.

I don't think God wants to be categorized by man in any way. Too many people want to do that whether they be radical Christians or radical muslims to use God for their own ends. It was THE reason for the separation of Church and State. If you are a Christian, you know that was a large part of the message of Christ and Judeaism as it had developed to that time.

Sometimes the courts have gone ot of their way to keep state from being seen as having an influence from God, but that goes too far also.

I would like to know just what he means by his statements.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
backhoeboogie said:
Tex said:
I would like to know just what he means by his statements.

:roll: Or atleast the entire text from which the snippet was extracted.

Don't you believe Huckabee said that?

This is what he said:

I have opponents in this race who 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 amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.

Here, watch the video. If you don't like these sites, it's all over the net. Just Google.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK-QVVPRki4

or here

http://digg.com/politics/Huckabee_Amend_the_Constitution_To_God_s_Standards
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Huckabee is a FOOL!!

He's down here yapping about the Confed. Flag, draggin' old used up , pot bellied wrestling " heros' and Chuck Norris around with him also. Saying stupid things like , " How'da ya like Chuck Norris for Sec of Defense?" :roll: :roll: :roll:


He's acting like we think the " war" is still being 'fit' and that wrestling is real!!!!! ** For those who need translation... " fit" is Southern past tense for " fought"**


Last thing we need is another president that thinks he's the Messiah !!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I'm leery on changing it, but at least the man is up front about it instead of ignoring and violating it like the clowns we have in Washington now have been doing.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
Wanting to change the Constitution is a red flag in my book.
It has stood the test of time...

No thanks, Huckabee.

I don't want it changed---- I want it enforced. That means Congress writes the laws, the pres. either signs or doesn't, if not, the Congress has a second shot at passing, then it is the law of the land for everyone!!!!

No more signing statements so the executive branch doesn't have to follow the laws as passed.

This Pres. has thrown the Constitution out the window and Congress hasn't stopped him. People may take an oath to the Constitution, but the GW makes it a loyalty oath to the king, not to the rule of law.

We don't need to change the Constitution-- we need do make it the law of th land again-- not the rule of the pres.

Clinton started it when he did the lawyer "It depends on what the word "is" means. Bush and Cheny and the republican leadership made it into the fleecing of America with their running of the executive branch for themselves and their cronies.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
ff, I am not denying he said it. I'd just like to know the whole story.

No one person can change the constitution. It is as simple as proposing an amendment and seeing if it passes or fails. Many have failed. If it passes, then you have to go thru the legislative branch and it could still be shot down. e.g. delcared "unconstitutional" :D :D

I don't know the whole story.

I don't have a candidate to wholeheartedly support. There are things to dislike about each and things to hate about others.
 

BRG

Well-known member
At least he has some morals and believes God word is true. It may not need changed, but I am I strong believer that we need to follow Gods way, instead of making God follow us, like the society is now doing. I kind of like the man, he isn't afraid to talk about Jesus at a time when it seems the country wants to throw him out the door. I applaud him.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I get a kick out of these candidates- and some of the issues they're off and running on in each little selected part of the country....This may be a good campaign tactic for when uckleberry's in "bible thumper' country-- but in order to do something- first he's got to become President- which is about 20 to 1 odds- and then he has to have a supporting Congress which is 1000's to 1 odds...

Lou Dobbs was getting a laugh about it today- how these politicians are concentrating on ethnicity, gender, whose most religious, and about 100 other things but don't want to talk answers about the real problems like our economy, national debt, drunken sailor spending, immigration, unfair free trade, the globalist sell out of our economy, etc. etc.

I had to agree with ol Lou tho- that about the only good he can so far see that will come out of this election- is we will be rid of GW - and that will be worth it whoever wins :wink: :lol:
 

bighorn

Member
So much for the Constitution when a court can rule certain amendments are null and void !!! :???:

SPRINGFIELD, Va., Jan. 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Gun Owners of
America (GOA), a grassroots lobby representing over 300,000 Americans, has
called on the Bush administration to withdraw an anti-gun brief field by
the Solicitor General in the U.S. Supreme Court.



The amicus brief, filed last Friday in the D.C. gun ban case of D.C. v.
Heller, argued that any gun ban - no matter how sweeping - could be
constitutional if some court determines that it is "reasonable."
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
OT, with all due respect, I hope you and Lou Dobbs don't have to eat your words..."we will be rid of GW and that will be worth it WHOEVER wins."

Not all of us feel that way.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Heres the whole story...And GW's boys screwed up again in the way they wrote up their briefs-- and has every gun owner, Conservative, and Constitutionalist wonder what GW is doing.....Its what occurs when you put cronyism above competency in hiring/appointing Cabinet members and staff....



WEAPONS OF CHOICE
National firearms ban 'reasonable'?
Gun owners warn arguments endanger Second Amendment


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 19, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com





A Second Amendment advocacy organization is asking the Bush administration to withdraw a legal brief that leaders fear could be used to support "any gun ban – no matter how sweeping," as long as some court somewhere determines it is "reasonable."

The concern comes from Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, whose group is pleading with the Bush administration to withdraw an anti-gun brief filed by the U.S. Solicitor General in a Supreme Court case regarding a District of Columbia ban on handguns.


The document from U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement noted since "unrestricted" private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the Second Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions.


His brief suggests gun rights are limited and since they are subject to "reasonable regulation," all gun limits imposed by the federal government should be affirmed as constitutional.

"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment," he wrote in the brief.


But Gun Owners of America, a grass-roots lobby representing more than 300,000 Americans, said the opinion creates a huge threat to the constitutional provision banning the "infringement" of the right to bear arms.


"If the Supreme Court were to accept the Solicitor General's line of argument, D.C.'s categorical gun ban of virtually all self-defense firearms could well be found to be constitutional…" Pratt said.

Worse, when the standard for evaluating gun bans becomes "reasonable," there is nothing else needed in order for a court somewhere to decide that all guns should be forbidden.

"In contrast to other provisions in the Bill of Rights, which can only be trumped by 'compelling state interests,' the Second Amendment would be relegated to an inferior position at the lowest rung of the constitutional ladder, should the Justice Department prevail," said Pratt.

He said the legal opinion could have been written by a gun limit lobby and it could be used in support of a ban on all guns by a government proclaiming "this is a reasonable regulation" even while affirming the "right" to bear arms.

Paul Helmke, of the pro-gun control Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, in fact earlier said he saluted the position paper.

But Pratt said it would be analogous to the situation in the state of Illinois, where the state constitution provides a right to keep and bear arms, "subject to the police power," he said. Not surprisingly, Illinois has one of the most restrictive atmospheres in the nation regarding guns, he told WND.

"Under the administration's amicus brief, a national ban on all firearms – including hunting rifles – could be 'constitutional,' even if the Supreme Court decides – on ample historical evidence – that the Founders intended the Second Amendment as an individual right," he continued.

"Rather than argue that 'shall not be infringed' is a categorical prohibition on government gun-banning, the administration has chosen to align itself with those who do not believe in self defense or civilian gun ownership," Pratt said.

He said his organization is issuing a public call for the Justice Department to withdraw the anti-gun statements, and is inviting other organizations to join in its battle against such a precedent.

In the case at hand, a Washington, D.C., ban on all handguns kept by residents in their homes for self-defense is being challenged.

Alan Gura, who is heading up the challenge, said he was troubled by Clement's actions, and described the statements as "hostile" to his Second Amendment position.

"We are very disappointed the administration is hostile to individual rights," he said.

Because of the specifics of the D.C. case, the ultimate ruling is expected to address directly whether the Second Amendment includes a right for individuals to have a gun, or whether local governments can approve whatever laws or ordinances they desire to restrict firearms.

The amendment reads, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Clement is the Bush administration's chief lawyer before the court, and submitted the arguments in the case that is to determine whether the D.C. limit is constitutional. He said the Second Amendment, "protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations," and noted the D.C. ban probably goes too far.

But his brief urges the Supreme Court to decide most current restrictions on guns and gun owners cannot be overturned by citing the Second Amendment.

"Nothing in the Second Amendment properly understood … calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms," he wrote.

The court's hearing on the case has not yet been held.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59770
 

Latest posts

Top