Mike Huckabee wants to replace the Constitution

[Marqus33308]

Huckabee is the American version of the Taliban.

He wants to change the Constitution to conform to the word of his God. That would be welcoming back slavery, stoning people to death and all the rest of his word of God crazy assed beliefs.

[Edgehead10075]

How does Citizens United making an anti-Hillary movie hurt you? Answer: it doesn't. Political speech must ALWAYS be allowed?

[Edgehead10075]

Corporations are ASSOCIATIONS of people made up of people, dumbass. An inanimate object can't talk. When a corporation speaks, PEOPLE are speaking. If people come together and form a corporation, they have a right to speak. Group speak is protected just as much as individual speech. Corporations are legally considered to be "persons," as well. Read the first amendment. It says that congress shall make no laws abridging speech. Period. No exceptions.

[Edgehead10075]

I don't agree with Huckabee here, but he's no worse than liberals who hate the Constitution. Liberals don't believe in the second amendment, and they don't believe in the first amendment either, given their reaction to the Citizens United ruling.

[UTAOUB]

Mike Huckabee is giving away copies of REDISCOVERING GOD IN AMERICA, written by Newt Gingrich and his (present) wife. Mr. Gingrich divorced a previous wife -- whilst she was in the hospital, sick with cancer! If THIS is Mr. Huckabee's view of "religion in action", I would hate to see the OTHER standards his religious views hold! (P.S.: I don't know Mr. Huckabee's denomination....but I am sure there are many good people in it. But Mr. Huckabee is DEFINITELY NOT ONE OF THEM!)

[UTAOUB]

Dear Mr. Huckabee: Are Christians of denominations other than yours, heretics? Do you believe in burning heretics at the stake? (It hurts their Earthly bodies....but it's good for their souls, isn't it?) And -- what abt Moslems & Jews, Shintoists, B'Hai etc.? Shud t US Constitution b modified 2 allow THEIR burning at stakes as well....IF they don't convert 2 UR denomination, efn aftr patient counselling? THE KORAN SAYS GOD CREATED ALL RELIGIONS TO SEE HOW WEL WE GET ALONG! Makes sense 2 me!

[UTAOUB]

God loves EVERYONE. Even atheists, who help make the rest of us THINK! Mr. Huckabee has blinders on...he sees in only ONE direction. Any1 opposed 2 his way f thinking s necessarily wrong...& perhpas even on t way 2 Hell! But REAL Hell is not being able to think for one's self. My motto, (Oliver Wendell Holmes): "My freexom 2 swing my arm stops wher ur nose begins! Pluralism s America's strength! Lik lovers f different potato chip flavours..we al hav r favourites...but we al like p. chips! :)

[tobigforyou]

This man is dangerous.

[DaveU80]

Stupid ass people cheering. Go live in North Korea if you want the government to run your life. Fucking idiots. YEAH................Oh it sounds so good. Until you think about it.

[Vire70]

Damn... what an absolute tosser.

[diabloblanco0819]

kill huckabee now!!! fucking fundie nutjob!!!

[Edgehead10075]

You should be arrested for threatening a person's life.

[diabloblanco0819]

@Edgehead10075 "Mike Huckabee Says He Wants Americans To Be Indoctrinated ***At Gunpoint***" This makes him a totalitarian fascist. He will force his religion on me and everyone else should he be elected. Therefore, he is my enemy and I wish for his death, much like he does for mine (I know like most christists he hates atheists.)

[Edgehead10075]

At gunpoint? When did he say that?

I don't agree with Huckabee, but you're exaggerating his position. At gunpoint?

Fascism isn't about religion. Huckabee is a theocrat, not a fascist.

[sandroeleven]

Huck once again shows us that christians still dont belive in the constitution..no matter what they tell us.

[albus23]

huchabee go home

[WVJimbo]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh wow...

[Budney420]

@VirtualFang1: You are wrong as' marriage is a religious ritual which somewhere along the way, government took over. I am not a relgious person but I can see the validity in the argument. A consitutional amendment is not necessary here however, just an offical civil union law can be enacted to protect the rights of gay couples. Words do in fact have meaning.

[AceofDimonds0]

@TehJedicake

in the "original" constitution: women couldnt vote and african americans were still slaves. and you say the constitution should have never been changed?

[Scardy]

Actually, the constitution was written so that it could change with the times, which is why we have amendments tacked on. The bill of rights were in fact, the first amendments to be added. The founding fathers knew that as society and technology evolved, so would the laws that govern us.

But to rewrite it so it's more "christian?" Who elected this guy!?

[VirtualFang1]

I don't think thats an accurate way of putting it. The Constitution has been changed several times and many of them have been an improvement. what Huckabee is suggesting is wrong because it completely reverses what the founding fathers created it for, insuring diversity and freedom. Amending the constitution to match the "word of god" negates the whole idea of diversity because there are different "gods" and different belief systems that would be violated by such a change.

[ExplosiveChickens]

The military would have to stop him, even if it means killing him! Because, when you join the military, you make an oath to protect the constitution.

[Theronguardaaah]

hummm duly noted explosive chickens duly noted.

[ExplosiveChickens]

Yeah, I couldn't think of making my comment sound more interesting, unlike my other comments.o_o

[goochieguy]

huckabee is a shitbag theocrat.

to hell with his god.

[zapopaul]

question: What's the difference between someone who defends the US constitution as innerant and someone who defends the bible as innerant?why shouldn't it be possible to modify the constitution if it's values become obsolete?sometimes i find the aclu as dogmatic as evangelicals.defend whatever right granted by the constitution or bill of rights by saying why it should exist, don't tell me it's the law, as if the law had been passed down from god at mount sinai.

[BlissfulKnowledge]

"What's the difference between someone who defends the US constitution as innerant and someone who defends the bible as innerant?"

No one is saying the Constitution is inerrant -- that's why we have a process of amendment.

The point is that it's values ARE NOT OBSOLETE.

You want to know why secularism should exist? It keeps theocracies away. It keeps your church your church, rather than a government agency. You should be overjoyed at secularism, not calling for its revocation.

[zapopaul]

well in that case argue that the values are not obsolete, don't argue that they are good because they are in the constitution. i know why secularism should exist and i agree with you on that, also, until they make an atheist church, there is no such thing as my church.

[BlissfulKnowledge]

What are you even asking here? If it's just devil's advocate for the sake of it, waste time elsewhere.

Otherwise, start making some sense by dealing with what is actually presented here, rather than random comments about needing to support what the Constitution says.

Sorry, I didn't feel the need to re-quote the Federalist papers on a YouTube video. Go look them up.

[Edgehead10075]

Has it ever occurred to you that a person can be against gay marriage and abortion for non-religious reasons? Even Ron Paul is pro-life, and he supports the Constitution the way that it is.

[Edgehead10075]

The Soviet Union didn't allow gay marriage. The Soviet Union was hardly a theocracy.

[brizzlie]

I'm sure i heard the crowd scream "Baaaa" (sheep reference)

[EternalSSA]

What a dangerous position. Is he Hitler reincarnated?

[rkzenrage]

Exactly.

[ziglet53]

Homosexuals shouldn't marry for many reasons. They're much more promiscuis, whether they're in a "committed" relationship or not. And many of their sexual behaviors cause more illnesses. Why do you think the FDA doesn't let MSM donate blood? The first American baby to die of AIDS got it from a homosexuals blood in a transfusion. Homosexuality belongs back in the DSM 4. Political expediency and correctness took it out in 1973. No scientific data whatsoever was used in this decision. Ludicrous.

[BlissfulKnowledge]

"Homosexuality belongs back in the DSM 4. Political expediency and correctness took it out in 1973. No scientific data whatsoever was used in this decision."

Wow, a Constitutional ignorant and a bigot. Who would've thought?!

It was PUT THERE by bigots like you, who had absolutely no justification for calling homosexuality a mental condition.

Take a hike.

[toomuchsoysauce]

@ziglet53 you are one stupid ignorant fuck bag. For your information, i am a lesbian and have been in a committed relationship for 4 years, i have only had one sexual partner my whole life and i have NO diseases whatsoever. Who the hell are you to judge people? You are a religious idiot scumbag.

[ziglet53]

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." -Thomas Jefferson. And Mike Huckabee is promoting just that, nothing more, nothing less. Nothing theocratic about it, never was. Thomas Jefferson was diest.

[BlissfulKnowledge]

"And Mike Huckabee is promoting just that, nothing more, nothing less. Nothing theocratic about it, never was."

Uhh, bullshit. There's a profound difference in saying "Look at the Constitution with original intent" (as Jefferson said in your quote) and saying "We need to CHANGE IT to be in line with GOD'S STANDARDS."

Comparing the two is quite sad.

[justinhlas]

Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution nor does he support the seperation of church and state. Huckabee doesn't believe in evolution and he wants to amment the constitution in "god's standards" (whatever that's supposed to mean"! We should be outraged at this!

[apparition2]

Be very suspicious of any politician who wears religion on his sleeve and attempts to shove it down everyone's throat. In the early 21st century religion is being exploited as a convenient shield for all types of moral turpitudes, including torture. Be very suspicious of Huckabee. I am very dismayed about Mr. Norris's endorsement of a political charlatan and very disappointed in Mr. Norris.What would Master Bruce say?

[WizardJim]

Find me a grassy knoll.

[rkzenrage]

Mike Huckabee is an idiot and we need to go the other direction.

Go back to the real US motto, get god off our money and out of the pledge.

Mr. Jefferson build up that WALL!

[DeusMortemEst]

I don't know whether to rate this five or one star. On one hand, you have exposed this ludicris fascist theocrat for what he is, on the other hand, on the other hand, the video displays a ludicris fascist theocrat speaking.

[JGTaveras]

I absolutely couldn't agree more. I'm torn. I am voting five because the poster deserves to be noted for this.

[kff]

Scary stuff!

[StoogeWatcher]

I hear a lot about how libs are whining about theocracy. Yet they would have no problem with Muslims wanting Sharia Law.

[BlissfulKnowledge]

"Yet they would have no problem with Muslims wanting Sharia Law."

Where is this ever said?

Newsflash: it's still a THEOCRACY even if it's a different religion than Christianity.

[shaolinotter]

This should be scary to christians too....

[lesliejs]

He said "change" and "amend," never used the word "replace." Video is titled in a misleading manner.

[BlissfulKnowledge]

"He said "change" and "amend," never used the word "replace." Video is titled in a misleading manner."

He's replacing the source: he's going for the change of our secular Constitution into one based on the bible.

You know if you change enough things, hey, you've replaced it.

[ziglet53]

It was never a secular Constitution. Did you study American History at all?

[BlissfulKnowledge]

"It was never a secular Constitution. Did you study American History at all?"

Yes, I did. I also studied the Constitution. Once more: show me where god is mentioned in the Constitution. Or Jesus. Or the Bible.

It's deliberately a SECULAR document. Saying otherwise shows your profound ignorance about it.

[BlissfulKnowledge]

"It is dominion we are after. Not just a voice ... not just influence ... not just equal time. It is dominion we are after."

-- George Grant

George Grant is a fundamentalist and Christian reconstructionist. He's also the co-author of the book "Kids Who Kill."

The other co-author: Mike Huckabee.

[Edella]

Ah yes...God's first commandment is: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.' Perhaps we should amend the Constitution to insure that this commandment is obeyed by ALL. Hell, why not just replace the Constitution with the Bible and be done with it?

[bfirepllc]

AMAZING!! I am hoping we do the exact opposite. The founding fathers specifically wanted and kept religion/god out of the constitution. That is the single most important and revolutionary thing about it. This hick wants a theocracy. Thats what Iran has. I couldn't despise this candidate more if I tried. GWB has done enough damage. This asshole will solidify our return to the dark ages.

[jimitl5]

@bfirepllc I would go further and point out the hypocracy of these people. They are all for dfeending the Constitution as long as they get to rewrite it the way they want. There is an inherent danger when one group decides to change the Constitution to fit their views. It just doesn't work that way.

[DarrelfromZeeland]

@bfirepllc What damage to George W Bush do?? Newsflash dumbass. Bush SAVED America from the muzzies and their lefty fellow travelers.

[MercifulMing]

what's he talking about? anti-gay marriage ammendment or anti-abortion ammendment?

[DeletedDelusion]

Anti? Why so negative.

If he´s elected President, he probably supports the:

"Totaly submit to your godly chosen President ammendment".

[eghieghi]

Definition of marriage and definition of human life amendments. The Human Life Amendment says you can't kill people (from conception to natural death) without due process. The marriage amendment says that marriage exists only between one man and one woman. There's no religions anywhere to be seen.

[BlissfulKnowledge]

"There's no religions anywhere to be seen."

Yeah, right, except for the ENTIRE basis of those amendments. What reasons at all, aside from religious ones, are there for considering "life" starting at conception? What reasons are there, aside from the blatant discrimination against homosexuals based on religious dogma, for not allowing homosexuals to marry?

[eghieghi]

There is the scientific one. You know there are non-religious prolife advocates.

And really, the abolition movement was often about people being created in God's image. Maybe it wasn't put that way in the constitution, but the motivation was religious for much of the country.

[BlissfulKnowledge]

"There is the scientific one. You know there are non-religious prolife advocates."

Name one scientific reason that "life" begins at conception.

And how it's NOT entirely based on the notion of a soul entering in at "that point."

[MercifulMing]

Prohibiting homosexual marriage reinforces the idea that they're not welcome in mainstream society. Why would you NOT want them to take part in an institution that encourages social and fiscal responsibility?

[eghieghi]

The objection I was answer is the theocratic nature of these amendments. Laws being motivated by religious ideals isn't prohibited by the 1st Amendment. The statement of the law would be completely secular.

[MercifulMing]

Denying marriage to homosexuals makes NO SENSE to me unless you're a member of a religion that claims it's immoral. If there is a good secular argument, I want to hear it. I will not accept a religious argument in a nation that protects me from state-sponsored religion.

[eghieghi]

How about the biological one? Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage had been about the upcoming generation(s). If we really trade that for the notion that marriage is primarily about (sterile) sexual love between any two people, it'll be a detriment to society as a whole.

Do you have a secular argument against a group of people claiming mutual love and demanding government sanction of their relationship?

[eghieghi]

Yes, the idea is to communicate that such behavior is discouraged.

[BlissfulKnowledge]

"How about the biological one?"

Marriage is not a biological effect. Marriage is a SOCIAL effect. Reproduction is the biological reason you're going for. Amazingly, sterile heterosexual couples can still marry, even though they can't reproduce.

So, why wouldn't you ban their happiness as well?

[eghieghi]

Sterility used to be grounds for divorce, though, before no-fault divorces became fashionable. It's hard to determine if a heterosexual couple is sterile before marriage, but a gay couple is pretty much sterile.

[BlissfulKnowledge]

"It's hard to determine if a heterosexual couple is sterile before marriage, but a gay couple is pretty much sterile."

You haven't answered the question.

Would sterile heterosexual couples not be able to marry?

[BlissfulKnowledge]

"it'll be a detriment to society as a whole."

How?

Explain to me how allowing gay people to marry weakens society.

In all honesty, I can conceive of no one being the slightest bit "weakened" by this, aside from those who obsess over it all the time.

[eghieghi]

Society is not just a collection of individuals. Making each individual happy doesn't necessarily make the whole better. The general point of marriage is to foster procreation and the rearing of children. Children should have a balance of a male and female parents. Men and women are different and bring different perspectives.

[BlissfulKnowledge]

"Children should have a balance of a male and female parents."

Why?

Is there any basis for this aside from "because I say so?"

And, again, you haven't given any rational explanation to how allowing gays to marry is a "detriment."

[BlissfulKnowledge]

"The general point of marriage is to foster procreation and the rearing of children."

You're talking about reproduction, not marriage really. Marriage is what happens when two people who love each other enough want to seal themselves to a dedicated relationship with each other, for society benefits.

Marriage is for raising children in general, yes. But you've done nothing to show that gay people can't raise kids just as well as any other parent can.

[MercifulMing]

Yes, it's called monogamy.

[VirtualFang1]

I agree. Let those of religion be against homosexuals it their right. But denying gay marrige is denying a legal right, a marrige liscence is a legal document.

[BlissfulKnowledge]

"Laws being motivated by religious ideals isn't prohibited by the 1st Amendment. The statement of the law would be completely secular."

Yes, the wording wouldn't appeal to god in it in most likely situations. Goody.

But you can't escape the point -- as EVERYONE knows -- that those two propositions are wholly and entirely based on religious dogma, trying to establish itself as law.

[eghieghi]

I'm not sure if "wholly and entirely" floats, but I get your point. But like I said, getting laws passed motivated by religious ideals is not prohibited.

[BlissfulKnowledge]

"But like I said, getting laws passed motivated by religious ideals is not prohibited."

No, passing laws that do nothing but enshrine obvious religious dogma IS prohibited. That's why no matter how secular or god-free you word creationism, it's still violates separation of church and state when you try to promote it at all attached to the government.

You've said that this is a "secular" law, but haven't done anything to refute that this is a completely religious argument, nothing more.

[BlissfulKnowledge]

"Laws being motivated by religious ideals isn't prohibited by the 1st Amendment."

More to the point, again, Huckabee said he wanted to bring the Constitution in line with the bible. I fail to see how that doesn't at SOME point violate the first amendment and the entire point of a secular nation.

[eghieghi]

Who said the Constitution should be in line with the Bible? He's talking specifically about (1) defining human life and (2) defining marriage. These are perfectly within the realm of (secular) civil law. It doesn't mention Christianity, God, or any religion at all.

[BlissfulKnowledge]

"Who said the Constitution should be in line with the Bible?"

Mike Huckabee. He said it should be in line with "god's standards." Gee, where would he be getting that from? Where would a Baptist preacher get "god's standards" from?

Maybe that book he things actually dictates "god's standards" called the bible?

[ziglet53]

The founding fathers that wrote said that it should be inline with the Bible. Sheesh.

[BlissfulKnowledge]

"The founding fathers that wrote said that it should be inline with the Bible."

Show me where the Constitution should be read in line with the Bible. Point to the sections of the Constitution that says the Bible or Christian dogma is where we get our foundation for government.

[BlissfulKnowledge]

"He's talking specifically about (1) defining human life and (2) defining marriage."

No, he's talking broader than that, and you're being an apologist for him. He's saying wants to bring the constitution under god's standards -- he did not limit it specifically to those two amendments. That's how the question was brought about, yes -- but he expanded far beyond that scope.

[HitchensFanatic]

"holy" shit!

[peacepleasetoday]

this is why politics scares me.

politics + religion = war

Nobody wants a war

nobody ever

its insane

peace

[eghieghi]

politics + economics = war

...

[fireskin12]

i don't support his views. but he is not saying replace the constitution.

within our sacred national document there are measures put into place that allow us to amend it to account for changes in society. surely you are familiar with constitutional amendments.

he would never be able to do it. but that is what he is talking about.

[ignescentidol]

Most likely he wouldn't be able to change the Constitution but, just that kind of ideology in a position of power is dangerous...I'm sure he was playing up the God card, but I don't want someone who Plays a role...Hackabee is W3...If he is willing to Play with his most concrete values (Christianity) then who knows what he is capable of...HACKabee is Dangerous!

[BlissfulKnowledge]

"but he is not saying replace the constitution."

His wording is broad enough to include that. And what is the basis for him stopping at JUST the discriminatory amendments for banning gay marriage and the culture of life amendment?

Nothing. Once those targets are acquired, they will inevitably move to further goals. Again, if we're using the bible as the basis for this -- which IS what he's saying at its root -- the entirety of our Constitution is invalid then.

[fireskin12]

i think you may be overstating it a bit. it's all hollow anyway, it would never come to pass. (just like the stuff ron paul says he wants. no way it would ever make it through congress. he doesn't have the support of the GOP let alone the democrats)

[BlissfulKnowledge]

"it's all hollow anyway, it would never come to pass."

No matter how unlikely it is to occur, Mike Huckabee and many of the people that support him DO want it to come to pass, and will work for it to happen. That is undeniable. And that is bad enough.