If you don’t feel like listening to Mike Huckabee drone on for that whole clip, you can fast-forward to about 3:50. He’s talking about how, unlike the Bible, the U.S. Constitution was designed to be amended. Here’s what he says:
My point was that the Constitution was a document, it’s a living, breathing document written in order that it could be changed. The Scriptures, however, were not written so that we would change them to adapt them to ever-changing cultural norms.
This is why he’s against gay marriage, apparently. But wait, what does he say on his site about judges trying to legislate from the bench?
I firmly believe that the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original meaning, and flatly reject the notion of a “living Constitution.” The meaning of the Constitution cannot be changed by judicial fiat.
Which is it? Either it’s a living, breathing document or it isn’t. Unless it’s some sort of… zombie Constitution? That would be pretty cool. I actually might have stayed awake in class if the Constitution were trying to eat people’s brains.
(Hat Tip: Hot Air)
I’m a registered Dem & not a Republi-backer by any means. Nevertheless it’s really clear to me why Mr. Huck is in fact, not contradicting himeself at all. His point is: which of our three branches of government is, in his opinion, entitled to “amend the Constitution”? He would tell you it’s the legislative branch and/or the people in terms of an amendment process. He doesn’t want the judicial branch to “amend from the bench”, he wants them to (strictly) interpret the laws that have been made. So, it is a Living Document and it isn’t - it depends on who’s doing the Living.
So I don’t think he’s being caught in a bald-faced contradiction here. On the other hand, I also don’t agree with the conservative “don’t legislate from the bench” philosophy - sometimes we need bold progressive action from the bench - or we stay stuck in history.