Disturbing Huckabee Position

[tellner]

I'm afraid Huckabee's statements are a bit more extreme and troubling than Obama's incident. Failure to put your hand in the right place is a stupid lapse for a political candidate. Advocating changing the highest law of the land to an explicitly religious document in a prepared speech is a whole different order of bad. Seen in the context of other statements such as his belief that his interpretation of the Bible should always trump science and his refusal to let people see the tapes of his old sermons it demonstrates a pattern of thought and action that call much more into question.

 

[shesulsa]

I'm afraid Huckabee's statements are a bit more extreme and troubling than Obama's incident. Failure to put your hand in the right place is a stupid lapse for a political candidate. Advocating changing the highest law of the land to an explicitly religious document in a prepared speech is a whole different order of bad. Seen in the context of other statements such as his belief that his interpretation of the Bible should always trump science and his refusal to let people see the tapes of his old sermons it demonstrates a pattern of thought and action that call much more into question.

:eye-popping:

I ... I agree.

:jaw-dropping:

 

[elder999]

They may be "extreme" and "disturbing," but they don't mean much.

From The U.S. Constitution Online:

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification.

With that said, it should be obvious that Mr. Huckabee is engaging in rhetoric, aimed solely at that portion of his possible supporters who would vote for him because of such statments-which really don't constitute much of a supportable position at all, since 3/4ths of the states would most likely never ratify either proposed amendment-his inability as President to engage in proposing such an amendment notwithstanding.

 

[Andrew Green]

With that said, it should be obvious that Mr. Huckabee is engaging in rhetoric, aimed solely at that portion of his possible supporters who would vote for him because of such statments-

Unfortunately such statements are also the sort of statements that will get people to not vote for you, or even to vote against you.

Whether it is actually possible for him to do so is really not relevant. Fact is he either wants to and believes it should be done, or, is spouting out whatever he thinks will get him votes even though he doesn't believe it.

Either way, that should count as a serious strike against him.

 

[elder999]

Unfortunately such statements are also the sort of statements that will get people to not vote for you, or even to vote against you.

Whether it is actually possible for him to do so is really not relevant. Fact is he either wants to and believes it should be done, or, is spouting out whatever he thinks will get him votes even though he doesn't believe it.

Either way, that should count as a serious strike against him.

So, don't vote for him-no biggie; I wasn't going to, anyway.....

 

[shesulsa]

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if people who make statements like this are sacrificial lambs - offered up to feel out the temperament of the people. Who reacts in what way to which statement?

But then again ... that's the red devil on the left shoulder.

 

[Andrew Green]

So, don't vote for him-no biggie; I wasn't going to, anyway.....

I'm not allowed to vote for any US politician

 

[michaeledward]

I do wish the Governor would stop talking until after Super Tuesday. Comments like this are certain to make him irrelevant prior to that national semi-primary. I believe he needs to stay in the race until after February 5th.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/228/story_22873_1.html

Belief.Net: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.

Governor Mike Huckabee: Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.

In less than three commas, in the same sentence, he ties together homosexuality, with pedafilia, and beastiality. Wonderful.

And, concerning the ascertian that Mr. Huckabee is leaving the decision up to the States, that too, is now shown to be false.

That’s why I think that people like Fred Thompson are dead wrong when he says just leave that up to the states. Well, that’s again the logic of the Civil War – that slavery could be okay in Georgia but not okay in Massachusetts. Obviously we’d today say, “Well, that’s nonsense. Slavery is wrong, period.” It can’t be right somewhere and wrong somewhere else. Same with abortion.

 

[Doc_Jude]

I'm afraid Huckabee's statements are a bit more extreme and troubling than Obama's incident. Failure to put your hand in the right place is a stupid lapse for a political candidate. Advocating changing the highest law of the land to an explicitly religious document in a prepared speech is a whole different order of bad. Seen in the context of other statements such as his belief that his interpretation of the Bible should always trump science and his refusal to let people see the tapes of his old sermons it demonstrates a pattern of thought and action that call much more into question.

:eye-popping:

I ... I agree.

:jaw-dropping:

Yeah, me too. Unfortunately, CHUCK NORRIS is backing Huck. I feel bad for Chuck, that he's fallen so far...

 

[Doc_Jude]

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if people who make statements like this are sacrificial lambs - offered up to feel out the temperament of the people. Who reacts in what way to which statement?

But then again ... that's the red devil on the left shoulder.

I think the little red guys on our shoulders must be cousins... :wink:

 

[Cruentus]

You state that Mr. Huckabee's "interpretation has been to make amendemnts that give the authority to the states".

Where?

The language Mr. Huckabee used has been quoted in this thread.





Neither of these quotes indicates that Mr. Huckabee is suggesting the choice to follow his living God's word is a decision that should be left to the State. His language indicates he wishes to alter the highest legal document in the land to equal his interpretation of the Bible.

When you say I am putting "my interpretation" into the language we are discussing; you are correct in that I am explaining the results of what his language indicates. Maybe your bible doens't contain the verse Matthew 19:6, or Ephesians 5:25. And perhaps your church doesn't interpret those passages in the same manner as another.

While we may disagree with what the outcome my be concerning a law that describes 'traditional marriage', I don't see any language from Mr. Huckabee suggesting that these decisions should be left to the "several States".

Again, if you look at only these quotes, it sounds exactly as you say it sounds.

But you can't just look at that, because it was an isolated incident, and it is all depending on what he meant by what he said. In most other quotes I have read when he explains it, he basically speaks about leaving the rights up to the states, as in this example:

John Hawkins: Switching gears again, do you think we should overturn Roe v. Wade?
Mike Huckabee: It would please me because I think Roe v. Wade is based on a real stretch of Constitutional application -- that somehow there is a greater privacy issue in the abortion concern -- than there is a human life issue -- and that the federal government should be making that decision as opposed to states making that decision.
So, I've never felt that it was a legitimate manner in which to address this and, first of all, it should be left to the states, the 10th Amendment, but secondly, to somehow believe that the taking of an innocent, unborn human life is about privacy and not about that unborn life is ludicrous.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/huckabee.php

 

[Cruentus]

Actually, if he were to get an Amendment added to the Constitution that somehow defined human life as beginning at conception & that gave rights to said non-viable fetus, he wouldn't have to challenge Roe VS Wade, since it's the bailiwick of the Judicial Branch to determine what is Constitutional and what is not. Such an amendment would instantly nullify any pro-choice legislation up to that point.
Also, he could "leave it up to the states" and have no qualms about it, since the states can only add to the Constitution but not take away.

Not really. Again, this is a lot of rhetoric that is scary to some people, but we have to look at what any of it actually means.

He passed a "human life amendment" in Arkansas. All it states is that the states will do what it can to protect life, and that it recognizes that an unborn child is a life. This did nothing to make abortions illegal. What it did do was it allowed for a person who attacks a pregnant woman to be charged with assault or murder on the unborn baby, depending on the outcome. It did allow for a woman to have a child and leave it safely at a hospital without facing criminal charges. But, abortion is still legal, and there aren't conflicts with the federal legislation. The outcome would be the same if this amendment was done on a federal level. Roe V Wade would still have to be overturned for abortions to become illegal, in which this could only happen at a state level. And that is how he would have it, as he expressed numerous times.

So far, I am not really seeing this to be the horrible thing that some of you would like to believe it is.

Overall, you (and this is all of you) either agree or disagree with his position. However, agree or disagree with his ACTUAL position, and the results that would occur from that position. Don't try to make up or blow his position out of proportion, and then disagree with that. Obviously creating that straw man doesn't really give him a fair criticism.

 

[Cruentus]

And, concerning the ascertian that Mr. Huckabee is leaving the decision up to the States, that too, is now shown to be false.

It's not showing to be false. This quote is actually inconsistant with the majority of his other quotes on the topic, where he has said that he would leave the rights up to the states. I think what he is refering too is the "human life amendment" that he would want on a federal level.

As far as gay marriage, he is just saying that we shouldn't change the term "marriage" to mean whatever we want, and that it should mean "man and woman." This says nothing about same sex couple unions, and the choice of that to be left up to the state. But really, with his fair tax plan, "marriage" does not matter as far as taxes are concerned. The union would only matter for insurance and wills and so forth; and those decisions would be left up to the states.

But, you guys don't have to like his position on any of this. I just think that it is important to be sure that we are looking at what it all means.

I am of the opinion that none of his positions regarding any of this stuff matters.

At the end of the say, abortions will still be legal and easy to have, and gay marriage will still be acceptable or unacceptable according to the states. This is as it is today, and nothing on this will change.

It was the same when Bush got elected twice, with the help of Carl Rove and the religious right. People were sprinting in circles in a panic over his religious positions, and oh my gosh abortion is going to become illegal and gays will be locked up somewhere and there will be mayham. None of it has happened. None of this will happen if Huckabee, or someone else with a pro-life anti-gay marriage stance gets elected. So at the end of the day, it doesn't matter.

I don't like his positions on these issues, and I especially don't like his rhetoric on these issues either. But, I would rather look at the things that he would impact, and decide if that would be positive for the country or not.

Like his fair tax plan, for example. This is a highly researched plan that would solve many of our economic problems. The tax burden would no longer be isolated to the lower and upper middle class people (while corporations and everyone above and below get's a tax break) who drive the economy. Now everyone would recieve their share of the burden; except the poor. Poverty level people would get a reimbursment check every year. Why doesn't a democrat, or another republican take up this idea?

There are a lot more impacting issues that a President would effect, and I would rather focus on those. I am willing to overlook issues that a President won't impact much when it comes down to it.

I do wish the Governor would stop talking until after Super Tuesday.

lol... I actually couldn't agree with you more on this one!

 

[michaeledward]

His language is not suggesting the 10th Amendment is an appropriate way of dealing with abortion. His statement is telling us that he believes the application of the 10th Amendment is never legitimate when dealing with the matter of a human life.

Here is the quote ...

I've never felt that it was a legitimate manner in which to address this and, first of all, it should be left to the states, the 10th Amendment, but secondly, to somehow believe that the taking of an innocent, unborn human life is about privacy and not about that unborn life is ludicrous.
​

Here it is with some edits, that I believe retain the original intent of the speaker, yet make more clear what is actually being said.

I've never felt that it {overturning Roe V Wade} was a legitimate manner in which to address this.

{That overturning Roe V. Wade} should be left to the states, {as prescribed in} the 10th Amendment is ludicrous.

...[T]o somehow believe that the taking of an innocent, unborn human life is about privacy and not about that unborn life is ludicrous.
​

If you look back on this board, you will find there was a time when I suggested that Governor Huckabee was, perhaps, one of the two best choices for Republicans. However, the more he speaks, the more he talks about destroying America.

 

[Cruentus]

But that is not the only quote though. When asked about the issue, up until recently, he danced quite a bit, talking about respect for life and such and things that everyone would agree with, but never explicitly said what he would do in a practical sense. So, I looked at his record and other things he has said. He has consistantly talked about giving the rights up to the states, going back as far as 1995. Check out here: http://dhgrassrevolt.wordpress.com/...ieves-abortion-should-be-left-up-to-states/So until this discussion, I never looked into it more then that. But his recent speech in Michigan, and his more recent sayings contradict his previous solution.

If you look back on this board, you will find there was a time when I suggested that Governor Huckabee was, perhaps, one of the two best choices for Republicans. However, the more he speaks, the more he talks about destroying America.

Yea... I really have nothing else to say. Incidently, I disagree with his position on these issues, but I just figured that they could be overlooked given that the President really doesn't have the control over these issues, just some influence. However, none of it matters anymore; Mainstream republicans are not as radical as he is now appearing to be on these issues, so he has essentially alienated himself and nailed himself into a coffin and will not be nominated due to his recent approach. It is a shame, because his stance on other issues seems so promising. Looks like we won't be fixing out tax and economic problems anytime soon...

 

[Cruentus]

See... this sucks. Its quotes like these that make me want to vote for him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRnAUFMSUZc&feature=related


Abortion and gay marriage issue aside, here we have a guy who would protect our individual rights, be fiscally sound with his tax plan, but would also actually give a crap about the working American. How refreshing, really. But, unfortunatily he will not get elected due to his radical alliance with the religious right; and it is a shame...

 

[michaeledward]

So .... I posted the 'Yes We Can' song above.

I saw this video today as well. Much more scary.

http://www.superdeluxe.com/sd/contentDetail.do?id=D81F2344BF5AC7BBF10D89679C1B620A014D35576FA505B0

Cute singer though ...

 

[Cruentus]

So .... I posted the 'Yes We Can' song above.

I saw this video today as well. Much more scary.

http://www.superdeluxe.com/sd/contentDetail.do?id=D81F2344BF5AC7BBF10D89679C1B620A014D35576FA505B0

Cute singer though ...

I loved the video! I have no idea what she was saying, I just put it on mute and watch it with my dinosaur suit. And at the end when she had the little camo hat and pistol.... yum!

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Truthfully as of this point I think Huckabee needs something really, really special to even be relevant in the reace. He just does not have mojo at this point.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Truthfully as of this point I think Huckabee needs something really, really special to even be relevant in the reace. He just does not have mojo at this point.

All he needs is to do is tell "Chuck" how things are going and all will be just fine