Why bother? Nobody pays attention to it anyway.

[solarbird]

Oh man, I can't pass this one up - Ladies and Gentlemen, Your Republican Frontrunner:

Huckabee: Amend Constitution to be in 'God's standards'
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Tuesday January 15, 2008
Raw Story

The United States Constitution never uses the word "God" or makes mention of any religion, drawing its sole authority from "We the People." However, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee thinks it's time to put an end to that.

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

[Meanwhile, all the hosts at MSNBC could come up with is the tepid...]

Scarborough finally suggested that while he believes "evangelicals should be able to talk politics ... some might find that statement very troubling, that we're going to change the Constitution to be in line with the Bible. And that's all I'm going to say."

[More at link]

ETA: There's some limited context from First Read, here. In particular, he's talking about amendments mandating discrimination against same-sex relationships (and, by the very nature of such things, removing queers from equal protection law) and to eliminate recognition of abortion rights, which would - by the nature of the way they do these things - would almost certainly strike against most forms of contraception as well.

Comments

[firni.livejournal.com]

WHICH god?

Kali? That would be cool.

[solarbird]

And will Indiana Jones be their drugged-up heart-ripping slave?

[archanglrobriel.livejournal.com]

Ha! My first thought was: "WHOSE God's standards?"

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

Lakshmi. I think her standards would work.

Or Aphrodite's, maybe.

Or Orgiastia. (I just made her up)

Those are the constitutional standards we need!

(Oh, I'd seen this posted a couple of other places before I got down to here, but this was the first one that mentioned Scarborough; just had to mention I had a poetry writing class w/him in college; I was a sophomore & he was a senior, I think; I dunno what has happened to him since cause he was actually a really nice guy back then, and even wrote a (pretty good, performed in the auditorium) musical about the evils of televangelism and people pretending to Christianity for material gain, & such (clearly from a Christian perspective, yes, but from the sort of Christian perspective that appeals to those things I like about Christianity. Again, I have no idea what happened in the years since.)

[archanglrobriel.livejournal.com]

some might find that statement very troubling, that we're going to change the Constitution to be in line with the Bible.

YA THINK?

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

The problem I have with Raw Story is that they don't link to what they're upset about. Makes it difficult to check their quoting and context.

Why would Huckabee bother changing the Good, Honest Hemp? (never forget that; the Declaration and Constitution are written on hemp paper; it's the best you can get. Nevermind that it's illegal to make it here anymore. But I digress.)

Because then he would have the moral authority, that's why. Good preaching is one thing, but if it's written down, then it's the Gospel according to Mike, and *no one* can even *think* of arguing with it. It makes his job as torturer-in-chief much, much easier. Anybody stands up to argue, and it's "HERETIC! Guards! Off with his head!" No expensive trial, no muss, no fuss, vive la guillotine.

Dear God, please protect me from those who consider themselves Your followers. Amen.

*sigh*

[solarbird]

This is a move on his part towards overt Christian Reconstructionism. You should look that up.

[angharads-house.livejournal.com]

Nah, look up Nehemiah Scudder.

And while you're at it, read Song of An Emerald Dove.

A.

[solarbird]

Grughk.

The book isn't in the King County Library System yet. Foo.

y llyfr

[angharads-house.livejournal.com]

Have advance reading copy and can loan if desired.

Re: y llyfr

[solarbird]

I've thrown it at the library's purchase request form, we'll see. It'll depend upon when it came out where.

Re: y llyfr

[angharads-house.livejournal.com]

Harvest Shadows Publications (small press) in MA; I know both the author and publisher, and therefore suspect that it may be OP altho' I can ask directly about that.

Re: y llyfr

[solarbird]

Amazon listed that; the only question is date of publication and such. They'll only consider a "buy" order within the last year. I know that some date of publication was in 2005, which makes it too old. But I don't know if there are other dates for different regions and such.

(In which case I can ask for it on inter-library loan.)

Re: y llyfr

[angharads-house.livejournal.com]

No. just the one edition that I know of; I can ask the author, though (and if she decides she wants to answer her e-mail this month ^_^ I might get such information confirmed). She goes in and out of hermit mode as do I, apparently.

I do have a reviewing-copy; it is available on abe.com for dollars 14.86, which seems a bit stiff for something that might well not be to your taste in reading; free from the library is a much better deal if possible. They've got more dosh than the likes of us would, as witness their expensive flights of architectural fantasy..... ^_^

Re: y llyfr

[solarbird]

Much later, I have a fail from Inter-Library Loan, as nobody will lend it to the King County Public Library without a $15 fee.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Let's roll the tape, Bob (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/1/15/143054/151).

[sar-anon.livejournal.com]

Thank you for posting that.
I knew the guy was a little off, but thought that we could do worse.
Now, I'm pretty sure that while we could do worse, I really don't want to want to live in that world.
I understand that peoples fear of difference and uncertainty can push them to desire a clear and consise understanding of "the rules", but to think that we live in a world where a man like H could not only rise high in public office, but aspire which a chance of winning the presidency of the United States... well it's scary. Very scary

I'm boggled. I'm sitting at work and am absolutely boggled.

[solarbird]

I'm hoping he gets the nomination. When Ellen Craswell got the GOP nomination here, she got 28% of the vote.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

The USA is not Washington state. Huckabee might win if he's the nominee. I'm pulling for Romney, because he has no principles and will be a weak opponent against any Democrat, and because the candidates that do have principles (Huckabee, Giuliani, McCain) have terrifying principles, and are all better candidates. Romney will squish and squash to wherever the votes are, which makes him more like the spineless elements of the Democratic Party than a traditional Republican.

[solarbird]

Giuliani just lost to Paul again (in Michigan) - badly, with 2.8% of the vote. I wonder if they'll start excluding him from debates. Muah.

[wrog]

Huckabee might win if he's the nominee.

I know this sort of thing is what I usually say when someone proposes doing, say, the Cross-over-vote Thing or whatever and work for having the Rs nominate the nuttiest character imaginable.

On the other hand, I think we're getting to the point where these folks have to get repudiated somehow. He needs to be the nominee, and he needs to get absolutely crushed.

Nothing else is going to break the back of the fundie vote.

[solarbird]

This matches my assessment well. This also provides the best current opportunity to trigger the realignments we need.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

See, you don't repudiate someone by giving them a chance to win. You repudiate them by marginalizing them forever, not only within the larger country but within their own chosen political party. The best choice for the GOP from a Democratic perspective is Romney, who will be easily defeatable and who isn't part of the religious right no matter how much he panders to them. Giuliani would be a good choice for repudiating them, but he's much more competitive as a candidate, and he represents a form of authoritarianism that is just as scary as the religious right.

The religious right vote is already starting to splinter, because not all religious conservatives believe that a focus on gays and abortion is the best way to represent their religion. That's particularly clear so long as their strategy of taking over the GOP has so clearly failed. To the extent they've taken power, they've abandoned their own goals, and to the extent they've maintained their goals, they've failed to gain power. They're just about to fall apart; they just need to be marginalized for a couple of more election cycles. Nominating Huckabee only serves to confirm that their decades-long strategy might finally be working after all. We need to avoid leaving that impression at all costs.

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

I've seen some other people express worry that Huck might actually win cause of his personal charm or media fawning ignoring the whole rapist-murderer releasing thing or corporate types getting behind him at the last second or whatever, but I just don't see him winning *any* battleground states (and the Dems aren't gonna carry the South and Oklahoma & Idaho no matter who the nominees are).

The guy is just too much of a nut w/too much baggage, even if he reigns in the craziness for the general election, and he doesn't *think* he's a nut, so he's gonna spout off the craziness unfettered.

Also

[solarbird]

If Huckabee can win the election, it's over anyway. In that case, it wouldn't just be in terms of there being a limited government and a Constitution, but in terms of their being even a secular state. Seriously. I'm banking on the idea that he can't.

Re: Also

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I agree with you that he can't. If only because some of the religious nutters will realize that he's want to impose his own version of religion upon the state. This is a case where the very fragmentation of the various groups works for the good -- with any luck, they'll start fighting among themselves.

Re: Also

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

See, this just seems like a very old (and wrong) argument repackaged in new language. The argument is that things have to get worse before they get better, so let's take steps that might make things worse, knowing that it gets us closer to our ultimate goal. Of course, the reality is that something that makes things worse makes things worse. There's no Marxist dialectic here whereby enhancing conflict will lead to a better resolution. The way to disempower the radical right is not to empower them, but to move the country away from them entirely. Deliberately fighting in their own arena in an attempt to defeat them just plays into their own screwed up view of the world. The key to victory is to refuse to play their game and to marginalize them and their constituency as much as possible.

Romney plays to the fundies for votes but he's not one of them. Nominating and defeating him would 1) show the fundies they don't even have control of the Republican Party, and 2) almost certainly elect a Democratic president, who openly opposes their agenda and will block everything they try to do. That's winning.

[hubbit.livejournal.com]

I just found this (okay, I'm slow), thought "Hey, Дара would want to know about this!" and....too late.

You're now my official source for scary political news.

Also: the land mass that became this country was settled by oppressive religious extremists looking for sanctuary to continue practiciing their oppressive religious extremism, because England of their day was just too damn lib'rul. F Huckabee is just continuing a long tradition of intolerant ignorance.

Even if by some odd lapse of American judgment he gets into office, he still has to contend with Congress. And only Congress can change the Constitution - the President, even if it's our current one, is not given czar-like powers over the law of the land.

Checks. Balances. They exist for just this eventuality.

[loopback.livejournal.com]

That'd be the congress that's agreed to torture and spying on american citizens and retroactive immunity for big business for violating the law to spy on people, right?

Yeah, no problem could possibly come up with that congress in play.

[solarbird]

You're now my official source for scary political news.
I used to post even more of that kind of thing. I've been backing off, because I'm pretty convinced it just doesn't do any fucking good at all.

And as per loopback's note, you have overwhelmingly more faith in what's left of the system than do I.

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

We need you to help spread the word about changing the system, even those of us temporarily descending into tribalistic infighting. =)

Seriously, you have no idea how great these things are, or how appreciated.

[solarbird]

Why? Seriously. I've been losing in politics - except, somehow, on queer rights - my entire life. Clearly, I'm DOIN IT WRNG. Or something.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Thank goodness that even if he managed to get his constitutional amendment repealing those portions of the First Amendment he finds personally inconvenient, the likelihood of the Congress mustering two-thirds majorities is slim -- and I'd put the chance of getting 38 states to ratify it as nearly zero. Yeah, you might get bare majorities in Congress, particularly from people wanting to grandstand for the folks back home, but I think there are still at least thirteen states whose legislatures wouldn't stand for it.

It might be a slightly different story if they try the ratifying-convention method -- essentially trying to ratify by referendum -- but I still think the attempt would fail.

Assuming we're able to pull back from the authoritarian swing we're in and get back to being a country ruled by laws, the Constitution's firewall on amendments is a good thing to avoid getting swamped by this sort of thing. It's annoying when things we want don't get passed, but a relief when nutcases propose what amounts to a State Religion with the proposer as Maximum Leader.

[wiredhound.livejournal.com]

Flag burning, marriage rules, and now a God amendment? The Republicans come up with the lamest ideas for messing with the Constitution. Way to distract from real issues like the economy or the environment.