[QUOTE=Gaudere]
You’re citing “Blessings of Liberty” as proof of Christianity in the constitution?! If it was “Blessings of God” or better yet “Blessings of Jesus”, you might have something, but “secure the blessings of liberty” just seems to be saying “to secure the benefits and overall awesomeness of liberty.” Unless Christians now worship liberty or something.
[/QUOTE]
That was more of a joke than anything else, but where, exactly, do you think “blessings” come from?
“Barney the big purple dinosaur bless thee, my child”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but amending the U.S. Constitution can be done in one of two ways. First, the states can get together and call a Constitutional Convention. This has never happened. Alternatively, the amendment must pass both chambers of Congress and then be voted on by the states. The POTUS plays no role in any of this.
So a POTUS who wanted to turn America into a Christian version of the Taliban would face difficulties unless some weird shit was going down. This isn’t to say that Huckabee’s views are defensible. Feel free to criticize until frogs rain from the sky. But I think worrying about the Constitution may be a little premature. I’d fret over Supreme Court appointments more.
Are the Republicans trying to throw the 2008 presidential race? Or are they trying to tap into a more mainstream feeling in America than I get to see in the gilded halls of NYC? Is there enough support for this sort of nut-jobbery here outside of the major metropolitan centers?
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Not within the clip presented by MSNBC, but Willie Geist, the MSNBC commentator who introduced the clip, said Huckabee was speaking about “human life and the definition of marriage.”
[/quote]
Sounds like I was right, then. I bet it was directed at McCain, and maybe at Giuliani.
While I tend to agree with that personally, I’m not religious, so religion doesn’t inform my position on anything. But most people in this country are religious, and they’re not going to find such a clear separation. The abolition movement had the support of a lot of people for religious purposes, and that led to the 13th amendment. There’s nothing to say that a voter shouldn’t look to his or her God for insight into how we should govern this country.
[QUOTE=marshmallow]
Correct me if I’m wrong, but amending the U.S. Constitution can be done in one of two ways. First, the states can get together and call a Constitutional Convention. This has never happened. Alternatively, the amendment must pass both chambers of Congress and then be voted on by the states. The POTUS plays no role in any of this.
So a POTUS who wanted to turn America into a Christian version of the Taliban would face difficulties unless some weird shit was going down. This isn’t to say that Huckabee’s views are defensible. Feel free to criticize until frogs rain from the sky. But I think worrying about the Constitution may be a little premature. I’d fret over Supreme Court appointments more.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed. There is zero chance that Huckabee could enact an anti-SSM amendment. Bush tried with a GOP dominated Congress, and it didn’t get anywhere. This says more about how MH goes about making decisions than it does about whether we’ll have an anti-SSM amendment during a hypothetical MH administration. And what that says about his decision making process ain’t good, if you ask me.
In that particular sentence structure, the blessings are coming from “Liberty”. There can be some ambiguity about “blessings” sometimes that implies God, like a “blessed event” is probably blessed by God–but “blessings of liberty” pretty plainly refers to well, blessings of liberty.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Sounds like I was right, then. I bet it was directed at McCain, and maybe at Giuliani.
[/QUOTE]
I would agree, but it is also a fine cudgel for the Democrats to batter him about the head in the general election. It is easily spun as an attempt to institute a state religion by codifying god in the constitution, which I believe more people will object to than support. While there are Christians aplenty, evangelicals and those that would make Christianity the state religion are considerably fewer.
No, I don’t think anyone here thinks Huckabee can actually change the Constitution himself. We’re just worried that having someone with those views as President would use his position to further the interests of his particular brand of Christianity in ways that his position allows. Nominating Supreme Court Justices, in particular.
Personally, I’m of the opinion that how the House and Senate shift in 2008 are at least as important as who holds the White House. The Senate seems poised to shift to the left, with something like 22 Republicans and 11 Democrats up for reelection, but the House could go either way. If the House shifts back to Republican control, that gives the Republican party much greater control. On the other hand, if the House gets enough Democrats to override a veto, it’ll make a huge difference.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
I would agree, but it is also a fine cudgel for the Democrats to batter him about the head in the general election. It is easily spun as an attempt to institute a state religion by codifying god in the constitution, which I believe more people will object to than support. While there are Christians aplenty, evangelicals and those that would make Christianity the state religion are considerably fewer.
[/QUOTE]
Yep. He’s building his own traps if he gets the GOP nomination. I don’t think the Republicans are that stupid, though, to give it to him.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Yep. He’s building his own traps if he gets the GOP nomination. I don’t think the Republicans are that stupid, though, to give it to him.
[/QUOTE]
Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups.
My sister, who’s a fundamentalist Christian, is wary of Huckabee for exactly the reason the OP is. She doesn’t want someone holding that office who thinks he has to be a bridge between God and man. She notes that if she needs to consult God, she will do so directly.
[QUOTE=wring]
well, that depends - they seem right fond of corporate welfare.
[/QUOTE]
Amen. The notion of fiscal conservativism among Republican leaders has become a joke. There was a time when Republicans were socially liberal and fiscally conservative — and then Lincoln was shot.
If it was “Blessings of God” or better yet “Blessings of Jesus”, you might have something, but “secure the blessings of liberty” just seems to be saying “to secure the benefits and overall awesomeness of liberty.” Unless Christians now worship liberty or something.