Huckabee to rewrite Constitution to God's standard

[Du5t1n 57]

-

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it

[Arcane 12]

The problem with this, is that not everyone believes in the same stuff, many don't even believe in God. I don't think that's too bright of an idea, though I can see his reasons.

[Max 10]

ok, i'll give it to you straight: huckabee. creeps. me. out.

hardcore christains scare me. there. i said it.

[Du5t1n 57]

ok, i'll give it to you straight: huckabee. creeps. me. out.

hardcore christains scare me. there. i said it.

I agree with you 100%. Fanatic Christians scare me.

[ZuZu 10]

when church and state combine it = the anti-christ.

[Padraig! 103]

I'm a Catholic, but the merging just wouldn't work.

[eyeoftruth 2]

Jesus christ... This is why I'm skeptic to religion-.-

[Sentri 1]

this happened i think 200 or so years ago with a guy named "Higher Law" Steward. He believed we should follow the Higher Law, aka God.

Could Huckabee be possesed by Steward?

Thank you AP history for the info

[Ryu 7]

i don't have a religion

[Sentri 1]

i don't have a religion

yea, nor do I

[Max 10]

i'm atheist, as i have stated before.

[Vivica Todd 0]

..Eh?

Would this mean no more gay stuff?

That's bull..

I mean, isn't the Constitution now pretty fair?...

Why change it?

[Padraig! 103]

Get rid of the right to bear arms.

[AarghZombies 0]

Get rid of the right to bear arms.

But why? Everyone has the right the have a pair of bear arms in their home!

/family guy.

But yeah, I'm glad the UK is relatively secular.

[Otis McNutt 395]

The authors of the Constitution were clearly aware that changes would be necessary from time to time if the Constitution was to endure and cope with the effects of the anticipated growth of the nation. However, they were also conscious that such change should not be easy, lest it permit ill-conceived and hastily passed amendments. Balancing this, they also wanted to ensure that an overly rigid requirement of unanimity would not block action desired by the vast majority of the population. Their solution was to devise a dual process by which the Constitution could be altered.

Unlike most constitutions, amendments to the U.S. constitution are appended to the existing body of the text, rather than being revisions of or insertions into the main articles. There is no provision for expunging from the text obsolete or rescinded provisions.

Aside from the direct process of amending the Constitution, the practical effect of its provisions may be altered by judicial decision and review. The United States is a common law country, rooted in English common law, with courts following the precedents established in prior cases. However, when a U.S. Supreme Court decision clarifies the application of a part of the Constitution to existing law, the effect is to establish the meaning of that part for all practical purposes. Not long after adoption of the Constitution, in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court established the doctrine of judicial review, which is the power of the Court to examine legislation and other acts of Congress and to decide their constitutionality. The doctrine also embraces the power of the Court to explain the meaning of various sections of the Constitution as they apply to particular cases brought before the Court. Since such cases will reflect changing legal, political, economic, and social conditions, this provides a mechanism, in practice, for adjusting the Constitution without needing to amend its text. Over the years, a series of Court decisions, on issues ranging from governmental regulation of radio and television to the rights of the accused in criminal cases, has affected a change in the way many Constitutional clauses are interpreted, without amendment to the actual text of the Constitution.

Congressional legislation, passed to implement provisions of the Constitution or to adapt those implementations to changing conditions, also broadens and, in subtle ways, changes the meanings given to the words of the Constitution. Up to a point, the rules and regulations of the many agencies of the federal government have a similar effect. In case of objection, the test in both cases is whether, in the opinion of the courts, such legislation and rules conform with the meanings given to the words of the Constitution.