She’s Right is serving up a terrific edition of the Carnival of Principled Government. So satisfy your inner “political animal” by heading over for a variety of thought-provoking posts on American government.
-
Welcome!
Principled Discovery is a place to stop and discuss news and information related to faith, family and particularly education. Pour yourself a cup of tea and join the conversation! -
Home School Talk
You didn’t have a problem with Huckabee saying: “It’s no longer your life; you’ve signed it over.”
How do you feel about this Huckabee quote:
Context:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Huckabee_Amend_Constitution_to_meet_Gods_0115.html
Are you trying to say he is some sort of whacked out nut because he proposes to work through the normal Constitutional process to pass an amendment?
It sounds better than appointing judges to interpret things into it that aren’t there or declaring it a living document.
I doubt he would be successful, but he certainly isn’t the first to propose an amendment. Or do you only find it disturbing that he bases this on his faith?
The nation is split almost 50/50 on the abortion issue. Not all pro-lifers support amendments, but if your litmus test for fundamentalism is this issue, than that is a little frightening.
Yes.
He said: “… to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards.”
That’s his interpretation of God’s standards. And the context is the last attempt to amend the Constitution was Bush’s marriage amendment, not about abortion.
You both think you know God’s standards and that they should apply to everyone even those who think those aren’t God’s standards?
Sorry…my fault on confusing what he is specifically wishing to amend.
But the main issue is the same. So long as he is proposing to work through the process outlined by the Constitution, I do not see an issue.
And even this is a broadly supported issue, I assume mostly supported by Christians. The amendment didn’t have enough votes to pass, but it did receive a majority of votes. Interestingly, Kerry’s stance is not all that different although he does oppose a Federal Marriage Amendment.
For the record, so do I. But that isn’t really what the concern is.
I think it is interesting that those who propose going through the constitutionally prescribed method of an amendment are somehow drawing criticism for that. It is how our government is supposed to work. On the other hand, the way gay marriage has taken place thus far has not gone through normal legal channels, except in New Hampshire, if I understand correctly.