Mike Huckabee Threatens To Leave The GOP Over Gay Marriage

[Skylar]

WE all know what the meaning of GOD is. Being an AGNOSTIC, I have NO REVULSION to the use of GOD in anything. For those that do, we simply LOOK BACK at our traditions and culture, and point to the fact that if the people that formed this Republic didn't BELIEVE in a CREATOR, we simply would NOT be the country that we once were....Live with it people, sticks and stones may break your bones but words ONLY HURT the truly demented!

The people who founded this country also believed slavery was nifty and bleeding was a valid medical treatment. So just because they saved us from the horror of being ... gasp... Canadians, I'm not feeling terribly obligated to subscribe to their superstitions.

That's another thing I think that many conservatives take to a bit of an extreme: hero worship and presumptions of infallibility with the founders. The constitution they wrote had holes you could drive a truck through. It was flawed in so many ways.....as it was a document formed in compromise.

We've vastly improved it since.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“That's definitely disputable.”


No, it's not:

'The political identity of the entire people of the Union is reinforced by the proposition, which I take to be beyond dispute, that, though limited as to its objects, the National Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States. McCulloch affirmed this proposition as well, when the Court rejected the suggestion that States could interfere with federal powers. "This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States." Id., at 432. The States have no power, reserved or otherwise, over the exercise of federal authority within its proper sphere.'


U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton 514 U.S. 779 1995 .


And that 'proper sphere' is clearly defined in Article VI, where Federal laws are supreme “and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Indeed, as Justice Kennedy further explained in US Term Limits: “national citizenship has privileges and immunities protected from state abridgement by the force of the Constitution itself[...e]ven before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment[.]”

 

[Skylar]

No, it's not:

Oh, it is. McCulloch v. Maryland had nothing to do with the relationship of the federal government with violations of individual rights by the States. It was a contest of State authority vs. Federal authority related to the Second Bank of the United States. And didn't involve State violations of individual rights under the Bill of Rights in the slightest. Why? Because the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States.

Which the USSC makes abundantly clear in Barron v. Baltimore in 1833. Where they found that the neither the Bill of Rights nor any constitutional restriction apply to the States unless expressly stated.

We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States.

Barron v. Baltimore in 1833
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/case.html

The court could not be clearer. And since no such express statement of inclusion exist in amendment 1 through 9. Meaning that none of those amendments restricted the States' actions in any way.

This point is profoundly reiterated during the introduction of the 14th amendment by Senator Howard. And again by Congressman Bingham. Both who argued that one of the purposes of the proposed 14th amendment was to apply the bill of rights to the States. Howard even went so far as to lament on the egregious violations of individual rights by the States and how the Federal government couldn't do anything about it.

Even the USSC recognized this in Strauder v. West Virginia when the found the 14th amendment was:

designed to assure to the colored race the enjoyment of all the civil rights that under the law are enjoyed by white persons, and to give to that race the protection of the general government, in that enjoyment, whenever it should be denied by the States.

Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1879)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/100/303/case.html

There's no ambiguity on this issue. The USSC was clear, twice. Once in Barron V. Baltimore and again in Strauder v. West Virginia. The first on how the States weren't subject to the Bill of Rights (or any part of the constitution) unless expressly stated. And the second on what the 14th amendment tried to do about that situation. Bingham and Howard the two primary writers of 14th amendment were clear, at least once each.

There was no mention whatsoever of the States and the Bill of Rights during the constitutional convention save one: that it was the job of the Federal government to protect the States and the jobs of the States to protect the rights of the people.

There's overwhelming historic and legal precedent contradicting your assertion. And nothing backing it up.

And that 'proper sphere' is clearly defined in Article VI, where Federal laws are supreme “and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Preventing State violations of the BIll of Rights isn't a clearly defined power of the Federal Government. Nor did the courts ever recognize it as such under the founder's constitution. It wasn't until the 14th amendment was passed and the Slaughter House cases came and went before we had the Bill of Rights even selectively applied to the States.

Not only is your assertion thoroughly debatable, its just wrong.

 

[Skylar]

national citizenship has privileges and immunities protected from state abridgement by the force of the Constitution itself[...e]ven before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment[.]”

Alas the Barron Court, Senator Howard, Senator Bingham, the Strauder Court and history disagree. The Barron Court explicitly rejects the concept with no ambiguity:

If the original Constitution, in the ninth and tenth sections of the first article, draws this plain and marked line of discrimination between the limitations it imposes on the powers of the General Government and on those of the State; if, in every inhibition intended to act on State power, words are employed which directly express that intent; some strong reason must be assigned for departing from this safe and judicious course in framing the amendments before that departure can be assumed. We search in vain for that reason.

Had the people of the several States, or any of them, required changes in their Constitutions, had they required additional safeguards to liberty from the apprehended encroachments of their particular governments, the remedy was in their own hands, and could have been applied by themselves

Barron V Baltimore 1833

The Barron Court in 1833 utterly obliterates and systematically dismantles the idea that the States were restricted by the bill of rights. Or any constitutional restriction that they weren't expressly included in. The courts get even more explicit in dismantling your entire argument.

But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.

Barron V Baltimore 1833

And you claim that its not even debatable? I disagree. And the USSC clearly did before the passage of the 14th amendment.

 

[birddog]

It would be a BIG LOSS if Mike left the R Party! He is a good man, and usually always correct! He would make a fine President, but I don't think he will take the pay cut. He is too honest to steal his riches like Clinton and Obama.

And how did Obama 'steal his riches'?

By being a phony and liar mostly, but kickbacks are likely considering all his misplaced "stimulus money."

Translation:

“I'm an ignorant, tedious rightwing partisan hack with a delusional, unwarranted hatred for the president.”

I am not ignorant, I am rightwing, and I don't hate the president, but I don't approve of his incompetence and his willingness to ruin our country! Again I would remind that "if you voted for Obama twice, you are way too ignorant to argue with!"

 

[Skylar]

I am not ignorant, I am rightwing, and I don't hate the president, but I don't approve of his incompetence and his willingness to ruin our country! Again I would remind that "if you voted for Obama twice, you are way too ignorant to argue with!"

So...what kick backs? You have no shortage or random accusations. But seem far less confident in your claims when asked to back them up with say, actual evidence. Or a plausible connection to reality.

 

[Dana7360]

Republicans need to be as far away as they can from this issue by 2016

In two years, Gay marriage will be the law of the land. Continued fighting by Republicans will stamp them as an archaic party fighting to preserve past hatreds

This is going to be interesting. Strategically, you're absolutely right. Republicans need to stop polishing this turd as it only serves to highight the distinction between what the majority of the electorate believes and what republicans believe.

However....

...this is a pet issue of the religious right. And as Huckabee demonstrates with his threats, its entirely possible for this issue to cause some serious discord among the GOP. I mean, more discord, given the clefting the party has already endured between mainstream and tea party republicans. So....more internal bickering among the GOP. And more damage to the brand outside it as support for gay marriage bans continues.

Its a lose-lose-lose scenario for republicans.

In 2016, Republicans can no longer continue their well rehearsed mantra of "I believe marriage is between one man and one woman". It will make them look totally out of touch with 2016 America
Now they can continue to pander to the religious right or surrender the young Republicans who wonder......What is wrong with these guys?

In 2016 and 2018 and on and on.....they'll still be saying it.

America only has this because of the courts. Or else you feel California is out of touch ?

This is too easy.

Not in my state.

The courts had nothing to do with marriage equality in Washington.

A petition was written that said the people wanted to create a law giving homosexuals the right to marry, enough signatures were gathered. I signed the petition.

The initiative was on the 2012 ballot and passed with a good margin. I voted in the majority.

So no court or our state congress did anything for homosexuals to be able to legally marry in Washington state.

It was done by the vote of the people.

 

[Skylar]

Only 17 states had prohibitions against interracial marriage at the time of the Loving decision in 1967. With a majority of the nation agreeing in the legalization of interracial marriage in 1997.

Your state voting it in is laudable. But 30 years is way too long to ask gays wait for rights they should able to exercise today. And its likely the courts that are going to have to step in and make it happen.

 

[AntiParty]

So what do the USMB Republicans think about Huckabee's latest threat?

RWW News Mike Huckabee Threatens To Leave The GOP Over Gay Marriage - YouTube

Big loss or good riddance?

I will make one note;

Only Old Testament Christians wanted to kill gays. The New Testament just says don't be gay.

Old test Christians are similar to 3rd world Islamists that haven't evolved yet.

America is catching up VERY slowly. I even saw Fox News (for the very first time) note that not all Islamists aren't all evil...........but only after Mahr called them evil, what Fox News had been calling them for about a decade.

 

[AntiParty]

HQUOTE="g5000, post: 9934739, member: 34052"]

Where would Huckabee go?

In his mind, he would form a third party of similarly minded malcontents and whiners.

God Hates Fags Party?

[/QUOTE]

Westboro is a family of Lawyers. Lawyers are top 10 in the top 1% and account for the reasons we have disability for the ones not disabled, they get a large cut of the disability checks if they prove someone disabled (a lawyer isn't needed if they are truly disabled generally).

The "God hates fags party" already exists and supports the 1% fully no matter what. Just like Westboro.

Westboro church brainwashes small brains into going out and getting attacked so they need lawyers. Fox News brainwashes small brains into going out and fighting for their own poverty.

 

[MarcATL]

The far right wing far overestimate their diminishing political punch.

You're so right on this one.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

WE all know what the meaning of GOD is. Being an AGNOSTIC, I have NO REVULSION to the use of GOD in anything. For those that do, we simply LOOK BACK at our traditions and culture, and point to the fact that if the people that formed this Republic didn't BELIEVE in a CREATOR, we simply would NOT be the country that we once were....Live with it people, sticks and stones may break your bones but words ONLY HURT the truly demented!

The people who founded this country also believed slavery was nifty and bleeding was a valid medical treatment. So just because they saved us from the horror of being ... gasp... Canadians, I'm not feeling terribly obligated to subscribe to their superstitions.

That's another thing I think that many conservatives take to a bit of an extreme: hero worship and presumptions of infallibility with the founders. The constitution they wrote had holes you could drive a truck through. It was flawed in so many ways.....as it was a document formed in compromise.

We've vastly improved it since.

Let's say that we have a more clear, accurate, and comprehensive understanding of the Constitution as intended not just by the Framers, but by the Founding Generation as well, the many Americans who participated in the state conventions that debated, considered, and ratified the Constitution.

Conservatives are quick to attack the notion that the Constitution over the decades was 'changed' or 'improved upon,' as they perceive that as a deviation from the 'original intent' per rightist dogma.

As is plainly evident in both the early case law such as McCulloch and the case law today such as US Term Limits, it was the original intent of the Framers that the Federal government be supreme, that acts of Congress are binding on the states and immune from state 'nullification,' that the Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied, that the Federal courts and their decisions were to be the supreme law of the land, where the states have neither the right nor authority to deny a citizen his civil liberties, or otherwise violate his Constitutional rights.

This fact has been a constant since the advent of the Republic.

 

[Vigilante]

WE all know what the meaning of GOD is. Being an AGNOSTIC, I have NO REVULSION to the use of GOD in anything. For those that do, we simply LOOK BACK at our traditions and culture, and point to the fact that if the people that formed this Republic didn't BELIEVE in a CREATOR, we simply would NOT be the country that we once were....Live with it people, sticks and stones may break your bones but words ONLY HURT the truly demented!

The people who founded this country also believed slavery was nifty and bleeding was a valid medical treatment. So just because they saved us from the horror of being ... gasp... Canadians, I'm not feeling terribly obligated to subscribe to their superstitions.

That's another thing I think that many conservatives take to a bit of an extreme: hero worship and presumptions of infallibility with the founders. The constitution they wrote had holes you could drive a truck through. It was flawed in so many ways.....as it was a document formed in compromise.

We've vastly improved it since.

Let's say that we have a more clear, accurate, and comprehensive understanding of the Constitution as intended not just by the Framers, but by the Founding Generation as well, the many Americans who participated in the state conventions that debated, considered, and ratified the Constitution.

Conservatives are quick to attack the notion that the Constitution over the decades was 'changed' or 'improved upon,' as they perceive that as a deviation from the 'original intent' per rightist dogma.

As is plainly evident in both the early case law such as McCulloch and the case law today such as US Term Limits, it was the original intent of the Framers that the Federal government be supreme, that acts of Congress are binding on the states and immune from state 'nullification,' that the Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied, that the Federal courts and their decisions were to be the supreme law of the land, where the states have neither the right nor authority to deny a citizen his civil liberties, or otherwise violate his Constitutional rights.

This fact has been a constant since the advent of the Republic.

No, it wasn't. Read Articale 5, shyster!

 

[Skylar]

Let's say that we have a more clear, accurate, and comprehensive understanding of the Constitution as intended not just by the Framers, but by the Founding Generation as well, the many Americans who participated in the state conventions that debated, considered, and ratified the Constitution.

You're not following me. I'm not saying that we have any greater insight into what the founders 'really meant' than previous generations. I'm saying that what the founders 'really meant' was deeply, deeply flawed. That the constitution as envisioned by the founders was deeply, deeply flawed. The overwhelming majority of the population couldn't vote. By design. Slavery was legal, by design. The Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States, by design.

But it was the best they could do at the time. We've done better.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It would be a BIG LOSS if Mike left the R Party! He is a good man, and usually always correct! He would make a fine President, but I don't think he will take the pay cut. He is too honest to steal his riches like Clinton and Obama.

And how did Obama 'steal his riches'?

By being a phony and liar mostly, but kickbacks are likely considering all his misplaced "stimulus money."

Translation:

“I'm an ignorant, tedious rightwing partisan hack with a delusional, unwarranted hatred for the president.”

I am not ignorant, I am rightwing, and I don't hate the president, but I don't approve of his incompetence and his willingness to ruin our country! Again I would remind that "if you voted for Obama twice, you are way too ignorant to argue with!"

You don't hate Obama but you believe he's intentionally 'ruining' the country.

You're not only ignorant, you're delusional.

 

[JakeStarkey]

WE all know what the meaning of GOD is. Being an AGNOSTIC, I have NO REVULSION to the use of GOD in anything. For those that do, we simply LOOK BACK at our traditions and culture, and point to the fact that if the people that formed this Republic didn't BELIEVE in a CREATOR, we simply would NOT be the country that we once were....Live with it people, sticks and stones may break your bones but words ONLY HURT the truly demented!

The people who founded this country also believed slavery was nifty and bleeding was a valid medical treatment. So just because they saved us from the horror of being ... gasp... Canadians, I'm not feeling terribly obligated to subscribe to their superstitions.

That's another thing I think that many conservatives take to a bit of an extreme: hero worship and presumptions of infallibility with the founders. The constitution they wrote had holes you could drive a truck through. It was flawed in so many ways.....as it was a document formed in compromise.

We've vastly improved it since.

Let's say that we have a more clear, accurate, and comprehensive understanding of the Constitution as intended not just by the Framers, but by the Founding Generation as well, the many Americans who participated in the state conventions that debated, considered, and ratified the Constitution.

Conservatives are quick to attack the notion that the Constitution over the decades was 'changed' or 'improved upon,' as they perceive that as a deviation from the 'original intent' per rightist dogma.

As is plainly evident in both the early case law such as McCulloch and the case law today such as US Term Limits, it was the original intent of the Framers that the Federal government be supreme, that acts of Congress are binding on the states and immune from state 'nullification,' that the Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied, that the Federal courts and their decisions were to be the supreme law of the land, where the states have neither the right nor authority to deny a citizen his civil liberties, or otherwise violate his Constitutional rights.

This fact has been a constant since the advent of the Republic.

No, it wasn't. Read Articale 5, shyster!

You don't have a clue as to the meaning of the Constitution and how it guides decision making. You are truly nothing more than a mindlessly chattering chipmunk.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

WE all know what the meaning of GOD is. Being an AGNOSTIC, I have NO REVULSION to the use of GOD in anything. For those that do, we simply LOOK BACK at our traditions and culture, and point to the fact that if the people that formed this Republic didn't BELIEVE in a CREATOR, we simply would NOT be the country that we once were....Live with it people, sticks and stones may break your bones but words ONLY HURT the truly demented!

The people who founded this country also believed slavery was nifty and bleeding was a valid medical treatment. So just because they saved us from the horror of being ... gasp... Canadians, I'm not feeling terribly obligated to subscribe to their superstitions.

That's another thing I think that many conservatives take to a bit of an extreme: hero worship and presumptions of infallibility with the founders. The constitution they wrote had holes you could drive a truck through. It was flawed in so many ways.....as it was a document formed in compromise.

We've vastly improved it since.

Let's say that we have a more clear, accurate, and comprehensive understanding of the Constitution as intended not just by the Framers, but by the Founding Generation as well, the many Americans who participated in the state conventions that debated, considered, and ratified the Constitution.

Conservatives are quick to attack the notion that the Constitution over the decades was 'changed' or 'improved upon,' as they perceive that as a deviation from the 'original intent' per rightist dogma.

As is plainly evident in both the early case law such as McCulloch and the case law today such as US Term Limits, it was the original intent of the Framers that the Federal government be supreme, that acts of Congress are binding on the states and immune from state 'nullification,' that the Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied, that the Federal courts and their decisions were to be the supreme law of the land, where the states have neither the right nor authority to deny a citizen his civil liberties, or otherwise violate his Constitutional rights.

This fact has been a constant since the advent of the Republic.

No, it wasn't. Read Articale 5, shyster!

The evidence grows that ignorance is a prerequisite to being conservative.

 

[Skylar]

As is plainly evident in both the early case law such as McCulloch and the case law today such as US Term Limits, it was the original intent of the Framers that the Federal government be supreme, that acts of Congress are binding on the states and immune from state 'nullification,' t

As it pertains to powers of the Federal Government and Powers of the States, yes. When in conflict on issues that the Federal government possessed explicit powers to regulate, Federal Power was supreme. Otherwise, the States were supreme. As the 10th amendment makes clear.

But it was NOT the intent of the founders that the restrictions to Federal power apply to the States. Unless explicitly stated, none of the restrictions that limited federal power applied to the States. Like say.....the Bill of Rights. It had absolutely no application to the States until nearly the turn of the 20th century. It was strictly a limit on federal power. The States could violate it to their hearts content. And often did.

And with the USSC full blessing for well over a century.

that the Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied, that the Federal courts and their decisions were to be the supreme law of the land, where the states have neither the right nor authority to deny a citizen his civil liberties, or otherwise violate his Constitutional rights.

Not even close. There is zero mention in the constitution of restrictions to federal power restricting the states. In fact, the constitution makes a strict delineation between what applies to the States and what does not. Unless expressly stated, these restrictions to federal power did not nor were ever intended to apply to the States. There is exactly zero mention in any portion of the constitutional convention of the Bill of Rights restricting States actions save one: that it was believed that the duty of the Federal Government to protect the States and the duty of the States to protect the rights of the people.

James Madison actually had a longer Bill of Rights than was actually passed, with a pair of amendments with explicitly enumerated application to the several States that no other amendments possessed. Something he never would have needed if all of the amendments were intended to apply to the States anyway.

The courts recognized this. In Barron V. Baltimore, the SCOTUS utterly obliterates your entire argument.

The counsel for the plaintiff in error insists that the Constitution was intended to secure the people of the several States against the undue exercise of power by their respective State governments, as well as against that which might be attempted by their General Government.

Barron V. Baltimore (1833)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/case.html

That's an explicit contradiction of your claims by the SCOTUS, btw. And they kick the shit out of that dead horse:

These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.

We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States.

Barron V. Baltimore (1833)

It was so well understood at this point in our nation's history that Justice Marshall actually got a little flippant about it:

"The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. "

Barron V. Baltimore (1833)

That's about as close as a justice of the 1830s could get to saying 'Muthafucka, please!". The answer was obvious: the bill of rights didn't apply to the States nor was ever intended to.

And of course, it was common knowledge at the time of the passage of the 14th amendment that the Bill of Rights nor any of the constitutional guarantees applied to or restricted the States in anyway. Protecting these guarantees from violation by the States was the reason section 1 of the 14th amendment was created.

and it is a fact well worthy of attention that the course of decision of our courts and the present settled doctrine is, that all these immunities, privileges, rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution or recognized by it, are secured to the citizen solely as a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts. They do not operate in the slightest degree as a restraint or prohibition upon State legislation. States are not affected by them, and it has been repeatedly held that the restriction contained in the Constitution against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation is not a restriction upon State legislation, but applies only to the legislation of Congress.

Senator Jacob Howard

Introduction of the 14th Amendment on the Senate Floor
May, 1866

The issue wasn't even debated, the case law on this was so rock solid and the principles so well understood by all. Making your assertion that the Federal government always had and was always intended to have the power to apply the Bill of Rights to the States an assertion that neither history, the constitutional conventions, James Madison nor the USSC in the pre 14th amendment era is capable of backing.