OK, let's do that:

The document is overwhelmingly procedural in nature. It's all about the machinery of government. I'll give you the amendments on cruel and unusual punishment, the abolition of slavery and prohibition (repealed soon after) as being mostly moral issues. And prohibition, the most obvious attempt to push morals on people, was a colossal mistake. I consider amendments on abortion and marriage to be in the same vein as prohibition.

Ok lets take a look at the amendments. By the way more details on the preambles and individual amendments can be found here.........

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html





So what I conclude is the same thing I did before, that being the fact that the constitution has an amoral and moral foundation. To say that there is no place for Issues that are moral or religious in the Constitution or Federal Code is not true.

And ironically, you take the opposite view when I write something, you simply ascribe your projected belief of what you think I meant instead of what I said.



Amending the Constitution is changing the Constitution. I never stated [pleeeaaase threaten to pull up my quotes.......] that he would attempt to change the entire document. And amending the Constitution based on purely religous grounds is divisive and discriminatory. Care to argue that it is not?

Let's break this down Kindergarten style:

A. Huckabee stated that he wanted to change the Constitution to be more in line with "god's" law. As I stated in my opening post.
B. Huckabee then stated that he wished to support two amendments to the Constitution, both of which are based on purely religious grounds. As I have re-stated in subsequent post's.

So far A and B are the same, since amending and changing are the same thing; and you will find no reference to me saying that he would rip up the Constitution and replace it with the bible.

C. I believe that basing constitutional law or amendments on religious grounds, where the citizens public safety, national defense or common good are not at stake.....is discriminatory and the antithesis of liberty.

So having said that, do you actually have an argument in defense of Huckabee [or any other fundamentalist wishing to be the President of ALL Americans]? Is there some other specific hidden meaning in his words that ONLY you are seeing, or are you just being argumentative to fill a gap in your social life?



Agreed, the issue in both cases is divisive. But when it comes to tampering with the founding document of our nation's legal system, you don't err purely on the position of an ancient tome. To do that would be irrational.



I certainly understand.....see above.



The difference is, with the admendments that you have labeled as 'moral' [by your opinion], the case was either exclusively or concurrently made for liberty, public safety, national defense, etc....They don't have to be mutually exclusive, but an amendment based only on 'moral' [read religious] grounds, is exclusive and discriminatory, and in the case of stem cell research, a public health issue.
You stated that "As long as I share most of the beliefs he has come to hold politically, whether or not some of it is based on religion is irrelevant." I take that to mean you're willing to roll over and not challenge Huckabee or another fundamentalist in changing the Constitution on these grounds. What ever will you do when the time comes that a President wants to change the Constitution with an amendment that targets you personally? It may be game over by that time, the precedence will have been set.

BTW....you believe the 18th amendment was not passed on moral grounds????

Dontreadonme



correction, what I know you have said, not what I think you meant. I don't claim anything about you, if you haven't said it. If however you make relations of our president or Huckabee to a terrorist or terrorist network, I'll address it accordingly. If you want to deny doing it as if I cant read, or need a kindergarten breakdown of things like you suggest later in this post, thats your business. Ive never claimed anything I wasn't willing to quote, as I have.



You were generalizing about what he said by not being specific, you may not have said the entire document but you failed to do anything but throw around hot air. No more threats here are some quotes.......

You............


Huckabee might have just alienated all potential voters except for the card carrying, fervent, bible thumping members of his 'base'. If this is modern conservatism, either he and his ilk have now truly perverted the meaning

You........


To state that the US Constitution should be aligned with the standards presumably put forth by an invisible omnipotent Judeo-Christian guy in the sky, is Taliban-esque demogoguery.

((hmm you didn't specify amendments or specific issues there, you said The U.S. Constitution. Perhaps that was a bad choice of words in his original speech, he should have been more specific but I see people like you using that to your advantage, but you know specifically what he meant, so act like it.
Also above is the reference you made of Huckabee to the Taliban. Later to claim that particular leap in logic was not a stretch, and of course deny you even did it.))

Here's one more.......

You.......

If you want government/god in your bedroom or on your internet, vote Huckabee.

((Lol, in our bedrooms and on the internet? Did the human life amendment or gay marriage issue lead you to conclude a vote for Huckabee means religious law is enforced to the extent that we cant get away from it in our own bedrooms? You see this is exactly the types of elaborations I'm talking about.))

And of course there were other things you said about Huckabee in this forum alone that were over top.




Kindergarten style? Ok, I'll play along. uhh duhh, thanks tyou vwery much. Kwindergrden stwyle, ohh boy!

To be serious, A. and B. are the same thing, since what he was referring to in A. was stated by him in B. You know this, and you even just said it, yet somehow a vote for Huckabee will bring religion to our bedrooms and internet, and his religious fundamentals are Taliban-esque demogoguery.

See the contradiction? One minute you act like you know the truth, then the next its Huckabee in our bedrooms and internet. You know what I think? I think you know what he meant all along, yet you don't care. You would rather smear him, and make elaborations while making false comparisons. I learned something about you, your more sensible than you make yourself out to be, but to you all is fair in the world of politics. Ohh well





The Constitution has been amended 27 times, it will likely continue to change very slowly over time, as opinions change, and our situation as a nation changes. I disagre that this particular change should be made like said, but it is a highly controversial issue in this nation, many agree it should be changed, as you seem to understand.



Well then this seems less like a belief based on one mans religion, and more like the combined beliefs of millions of Americans. Since you understand that issues such as abortion are criticized by some and supported by others, and admit both issues are controversial, I assume you also understand that this concept is not huckabee's alone and is shared by many people of varied beliefs. His original statement really was lacking in details, but since you understand what he meant, It's nice to talk about what he meant for a change. Now if these issues are very important to you I suggest don't vote for him, but don't elaborate everything when you do know what he meant. Thats all.

Well I'm out for the night, Gnight room.

I disagree even with your assessment of the First Amendment as based on nothing but morals. Remember where we were coming from - religious intolerance, Church of England, and a monarchy. Freedom of religion, the press and expression are, first and foremost, protections against government overreaching and checks on government power. In England, the church was a state instrument, and another source of power. Freedom of religion was simply a protection against any official state religion being used as an instrument of control. Freedom of the press and freedom of expression are similar curbs on governmental power. You are allowed to complain about the government because in this system, it will help the government run better in the long run.

Put another way - just because these amendments were written by upstanding guys and are generally popular with the people, that does not make them morality-based. This was a document that needed the approval of the people. It was designed to be the framework of a working government, and the specific impetus behind many of the features you point to as moral was simply the dissatisfaction with England's system.

Another problem with calling the Consitution morality-based: slavery was not abolished until 1865. If morality was a driving force behind the Constitution, why was this obviously immoral institution allowed to continue, even against the very words of the Declaration? Because ignoring slavery was a matter of expediency. Ignoring slavery allowed them to get the thing done and in place, and get on with the business of governing.

JohnfrmCleveland


Well the first amendment has formalities in how it would technically apply in a court case, all of them do, but it is set in place to protect freedoms. Heck its titled "Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression" Is it moral, right, or just for our gouvernment to deny its citizens certain freedoms? This amendment at its foundation is put in place to defend our rights as American civilians to express themselves, therefore it is a moral issue.



And how does that make its amendments strictly amoral, or how does it make the constitution as a whole strictly a formality? Sure it was designed to be part of the framework of a working government, but what that gouvernment is in place to govern is the real question. Were the amendments in it put in place to help govern a race of machines without morals? Of course not, it was written by men with morals to give rights to a country of morally based Americans. Some amendments are more technical than others, but many amendments give and defend rights that are based on religion/race/sex/the right to privacy/ ect.. ect... Those are issues that wouldn't even apply if our society was amoral, if we were a race of robots with no emotion and no morals then the constitution could exist while defending no moral principals.



Simple, because the constitution was not being fully enforced. That doesn't mean the issue of slavery is not a moral issue. Was it not immoral to enslave an entire race? Amendment 13, wouldn't apply, and wouldn't even exist if abolishing slavery wasn't considered a moral and just thing to do. Now the fact that some of these amendments were not enforced for long periods of time is irrelevant. That simply means that some changes are so major that it took our country time to enforce them. The ways of the past died hard, but we got to where we are today and that was because we followed those morals.

So if I undertsand you correctly, a moral amendment gives and defends rights that are based on religion/race/sex/the right to privacy/ ect.. ect... So a moral law or amendment would ensure equality, liberty and non-discrimination for all citizens, yes? Although I still personally wouldn't use the term morals, I can adjust my verbage to agree that some moral element can/should exist in the Constitution.

Isn't then, the marriage amendment desired by fundamentalists such as Huckabee......immoral?

Well IMO many amendments have potential morally based applications. However yes, the ones that incorporate anything to do with human rights, or freedoms are the ones that actually wouldn't exist if we weren't a people of morals. On the other hand amendments dealing with things such as "Limiting Congressional Pay Increases" or "Status of Income Tax" are the types of amendments which are pretty much just formalities that regulate gouvernment, so I wouldn't consider those to be "morally based".




Well I wouldn't call it immoral, I would call it his morals, and certainly not his alone. To him and millions of other Americans, Abortion, stem cell research, and same sex marriage is whats immoral. These issues we have been talking about, have been up in the air for decades now. I could understand where your coming from if his views were not shared by millions of other Americans, including many politicians, but they are. If your morals tell you that these are crucial rights we should have, and these issues are strong enough to be determining factors on who you vote for, then Huckabee is obviously not your guy.

Personally I'm actually with you on this one, I don't agree with amending the constitution in the way Huckabee described. Above any those issues, I am someone who is for the advancement of science in general, and therefore support Stem Cell Research, and while we should have some limits ((like not doing cruel experiments on human guinea pigs)) I believe Stem Cell Research is important, and it can save lives.

Every candidate has at least one thing I don't like about them, or one issue I disagre with. This more than anything is where I part with Huckabee, but the fact that his faith inspired him to want to make this change, to me is irrelevant when that view is shared with so many other Americans, many of whom are not Christian. Now if he had come out and said he wants to exterminate the Jews on the bases of religion, he would be part of such a small group of odd balls that I would believe his religious faith is dangerous myself. What we are seeing in America on these issues is just a huge conflict of opinion, however in regards to these issues, who is wrong and who is right is strictly a matter of opinion, it would depend on who you ask.

This is why I tread carefully before condemning a presidential candidate on the basis of his or her opinion on the human life amendment, or gay marriage. I'll just disagre with them.

You lost me on this point - what do you mean it was not being enforced? There was nothing to enforce, because it wasn't included in the original Bill of Rights, even though abolition was definitely on the minds of many at the time. It was considered, then left off to appease the Southern states for almost a century. To me, that says political expediency trumps morals when writing the Constitution, even when the moral question at hand is such an easy call, like human slavery. The moral questions behind abortion and gay marriage are not even close to being universally agreed upon.

Anyway, it appears that this Huck-a-Mania will all be moot very soon:

Huckabee’s Money Woes Curtail Campaign

The people (with money) have spoken.

No I was referring to after 1865, not between the 1700's and 1865. Slavery from what Ive read didn't end overnight, It went on illegaly for a while, thats just what I remember from school.

Beyond that, although the 13th amendment made slavery illegal, blacks of course were far from equal. The kkk was then formed in 1866, they weren't as notorious as they were in the mid 90's but they came into the picture, segregation of course was still in place as well, although the 13th amendment didn't address that.

I think the point I was trying to make is that often even today the rules in the constitution are not obeyed, on the flip sided at times
they are taken advantage of in the courts, to help someone guilty of a crime, walk free. The fact that they are not always practiced doesn't mean that amendments like the 13th amendment had no moral premise.

If your question was why did it take so long for them to incorporate the abolishment of slavery into the constitution with it being largely based on morals, the answer is simply that the convenience of free labor trumped morality just like you said, thats exactly right. It was a shame that our system was so slow to outlaw slavery.

About what you showed on Huckabee I also agree it will be hard for him to continue in the future, thats ok I have a 2nd horse in the race, and if McCain cant get the nomination I'll just be voting for the lesser of the two schmucks this November.