Huck’s “Living Constitution”

There was some hoopla over a statement from Huckabee today about the Constitution being a “living, breathing document”:

He does not appear to understand that reliance on the notion that the Constitution is a living, breathing document is precisely the kind of wrong-headed thinking about the Constitution that gave us Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion across our nation, and Lawrence v. Texas, which decriminalized sodomy.

I do not believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document. I am committed to appointing strict constructionist judges to the bench if I am elected President, strict constructionists who believe the Constitution has a fixed meaning that can be applied to cases that come before the courts today. They do NOT believe the Constitution is a “living, breathing document,” whose meaning, constantly changing with the sifting sands of our culture, can be determined and applied by unelected judges.

I fear that this loose language about our Constitution calls into question Governor Huckabee’s appreciation and understanding of the issue of judicial activism and raises questions as to what kind of judges he would appoint were he to become President.

And then your left shaking your head in wonder when checking out Huck’s own website:

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. The powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution come from “We the People,” and judges have no right to prohibit the people from passing democratically-enacted laws unless we have explicitly authorized them to do so. Nor can vaguely-worded language in the Constitution be used by judges to give them power over subjects the framers never intended our founding document to address. As such, any interpretation of the Constitution that is based on “evolving standards of decency,” penumbras, or any other judicial fiction, is antithetical to the rule of law, and must be forcefully challenged.

So does he believe in the Constitution being a “living, breathing document” or not? My own reading of his statement seems to me he was basically talking about the fact that the Constitution can be changed through amendment, not through judicial activitism. But when he lays out the liberal code word of “living document” on his website, and then says he supports a “living document” it certainly appears he is talking out both sides of his mouth.

Certainly not a trait I want in the next President of the United States.

Curt

See author page