DLS constantly understates the influence of the RR on the Republican Party and painting them as the poor underdogs compared to the evil commie pinko green liberals. If it is an RNC cliche, DLS is there supporting it.

DLS: I am not “the Left,” and therefore can't speak for them, but one Bible-belt raised Southerner who has been uneasily watching right-wing Christians (so-called) since before the days of Jimmy Carter and the rise of “the Moral Majority.” I am simply stating an objection to something Huckabee is quoted as having said. I like him.

I am tired of public officials who pander to the so-called “religious right,” however small or weak or powerless you might believe them to be. Among other things, it encourages people to stare at the mote in their brother's eye without beholding the plank in their own, as it were.

By the way, did you notice you've made a lot of assumptions about my opinions? “illogical”….”emotional”….”right”…”left”….The problem with these labels, which I need to do a better job of avoiding myself, is that they get in the way of any real discourse on the issues. At any rate, once you've dismissed an argument as “illogical” and “emotional”—-as women of my generation have cause to know—there really isn't any point in continuing to speak.

AustinRoth: I didn't say that separation of church and state was “originally” in the Constitution or indeed address Constitutional history at all. It's there now; and the known statements of a number of the founders certainly support the view that they intended the government to be religiously neutral. At any rate, I don't mind qualifying my statement by saying that IN MY OPINION to amend the Constitution “to reflect the word of the living God” violates the principle of separation of church and state.

A constitutional ban on abortion has less chance of success than a flag-burning amendment (which, I'll add, is a form of idolatry). On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with overturning the illegitimate ruling Roe v. Wade and correctly leaving regulation of abortion to state and local government, where it correctly belongs. Also, there's no reason or right whatsoever to abortion being provided by the federal government — which of course will become an issue of concern once extending Medicare to everyone, or providing federal health care to everyone, is initiated.

There's no reason to fear the Religious Right, who are mainly the victims here (particularly on this site and elsewhere where there is far-left infection), and have much less power and influence than is suspected (their votes are taken for granted because they, being well right of center, have adopted the GOP as their home by default, seeking shelter from the Democrats and the Left).

We aren't going to have any federal “blue laws” any time soon.

It is of course in the First Amendment, but it IS an Amendment, which the proscribed method for changing or updating the Constitution (rather than, say Judicial fiat).

I have no desire to see Huckabee or his ilk get their way on these issues, but let's at least present the facts correctly.

Please try not to be too emotional and illogical about this.

The following,

“a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman”

is not unusual or outrageous in the least. I happen to believe it is overkill, and a “human life amendment” is almost as evasive as what the Left does on the pro-abortion side (if abortion is to be banned, this is what the amendment should say), but I also understand that most people see the second amendment listed as desireable, particuarly when we continue to see illegitimate leftist judicial activism that substitutes judges' well-left-of-the-public views for valid law. That is totally different from what is sought in this case, which was well described by Flyerhawk:

“I have no desire to vote for Huckabee at all but I don't see anything particularly odious in his desire to change the Constitution to suit his beliefs, provided he follows legal guidelines in doing so.”

At least these people want the Constitution changed the real, valid way!

I'm not sure if I agree with you on this. Does it really matter why Huckabee wishes to outlaw abortion? Certainly 19th Century Republicans felt that abolishing slavery was a mandate based on higher law. If he can convince enough people that we should pass a Federal Amendment, more power to him. Somehow I don't 3/4 of state legislatures plus 2/3 of both houses jumping on board though.

I have no desire to vote for Huckabee at all but I don't see anything particularly odious in his desire to change the Constitution to suit his beliefs, provided he follows legal guidelines in doing so.