Once Again, Mike Huckabee Proves That Republicans Don’t Know Anything About the Constitution

mike-huckabee-facebooThe conservative rhetoric surrounding our Constitution has always fascinated me. When you trace back conservative ideology, they’re practically always on the wrong side of history when it comes every major issue in this country.


Like I’ve said numerous times, when you go back in history and look at the states that supported:

  • Slavery
  • Denying women the right to vote
  • Segregation
  • Bans on interracial marriage
  • The opposition to the Civil Rights Act

They’re almost all states that have always been “conservative” and are almost all “strongly Republican” today.

States like South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Mississippi – all on the wrong side of history during each of those times in our history and all very Republican states today.

Yet, despite that overwhelming evidence showing that conservatives almost always end up on the wrong side of history, millions of them will look you straight in the eye and swear that they’re the ones “standing for Constitutional values.”

Meanwhile, even today, when it comes to gay rights (which practically every court has ruled against Republicans), and abortion rights (which the Supreme Court ruled on over 40 years ago), conservatives continue to be on the wrong side of each issue as it relates to our Constitution.

So it’s not a big surprise to see that Politifact busted GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee in a flat-out lie when he declared that the Supreme Court doesn’t have the right to overrule other branches of government.

During an interview with Fox News, Huckabee said of the presidency:

“We are sworn to uphold the Constitution and law. And it has to be consistent and agreed upon with three branches of government — one can’t overrule the other two.”

It’s shocking that he was governor of a state – and is running for president – yet doesn’t seem to even understand high school-level government.


While the Supreme Court cannot overrule Constitutional Amendments (because the Court’s purpose is simply to interpret the Constitution, not change it) the main purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law. That’s why the Court exists in the first place – to make sure the other two branches of government don’t pass unconstitutional laws.

But he’s not the first Republican to say something like this. I’ve seen many Republican politicians insinuate that the Supreme Court doesn’t have the right to rule on same-sex marriage because that’s not their job.

It’s just comical how often many Republicans say something that proves that they really don’t seem to understand what it is the Supreme Court does. Well, until it rules on something in their favor, then suddenly they’re big fans of the Court interpreting those laws. You know, like when the Court rules that money somehow equals “speech.” They were thrilled with that ruling considering it plays right into the hands of the people they really serve, the Koch brothers.

Nevertheless, Mike Huckabee once again showed that when it comes to understanding our Constitution, Republicans almost always get it wrong.



Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • strayaway

    This weekend, the Senate will vote on resurrecting the Patriot Act supported by the president who once spoke out against it. We well see which Senators of either party side with the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment and which Senators side with the expanding Bush/Obama police state.

  • Charles Vincent

    Slavery

    Segregation

    The opposition to the Civil Rights Act

    All of these were perpetrated by the democratic party. You need to learn history better Allen.

    • BB-Mystic

      Allen knows his history. He knows, as I do, that the Democratic Pary back then is not the same Democratic Party today, and neither is the Republican Party for that matter.

      I don’t know why y’all keep bringing that nonsense up. It’s old news.

      • Charles Vincent

        Really he knows his history? Then why is he saying republicans were against the civil rights act and for slavery both of which are historically not true. I think you only see what you want to see.

      • BB-Mystic

        Except that’s not what he said.

        They’re almost all states that have always been “conservative” and are almost all “strongly Republican” today. States like South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Mississippi – all on the wrong side of history during each of those times in our history and all very Republican states today.

        At the time of the Civil Rights Act, “conservative” equaled the Southern Democrats, or the Dixiecrats. The two mentions of “Republicans” are linked with the qualifier “today.”

        Who’s only seeing what they want to see?

      • Charles Vincent

        “Like I’ve said numerous times, when you go back in history and look at the states that supported: Slavery Denying women the right to vote Segregation Bans on interracial marriage The opposition to the Civil Rights Act They’re almost all states that have always been “conservative” and are almost all “strongly Republican” today.”

        He is conflating to make a false point. Furthermore his use of the term conservative is equivocation, and a gross generalization.

      • noah vail

        and i smell horse s**t coming from here…since when is presenting facts “conflating”?

      • Charles Vincent

        Do I need to draw it in crayon for you chief?

      • traveler19491

        Crayon would be nice…or, in the alternative, you could just try explaining yourself like an adult, and answer the question…I’ll repeat it as you seem to have a short attention span: since when is presenting FACTS “conflating”? See, Charlie, the issue is “conservative”, regardless of which party. Democrat, Republican, doesn’t make a bit of difference. It’s always been CONSERVATIVES who have been on the wrong side of every significant social issue throughout history.

    • Darrian

      Yes, SOUTHERN Democrats 150 years ago, the liberals were Republicans…it’s funny you still can’t differentiate ideology from party…

      • Darrian

        Or geography for that matter….

      • Charles Vincent

        You missed it chief it was Allen Clifton that posited that I just highlighted it for you and southern states weren’t republican in the main until the 1990’s. In the case of the civil rights act it was the democrats that filibustered republicans not the other way round. And last time I checked no one in this country owned people of any color or creed regardless of political affiliation.

      • traveler19491

        Aaaaand…once again you’re wrong, Charlie! But way to go, keeping up a spotless record! It would help if you brushed up on your history, just a wee bit. See, I was around when the South turned Republican…I remember. Southerners refused to join the Republican party after the Civil War because of Lincoln’s freeing of the slaves. They were racists who called themselves “Dixiecrats”. They began the move to the Republican party in 1964, immediately after Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act, and the exodus accelerated after the Voting Rights Act was passed. The change was cemented in 1972 when Nixon implemented his “Southern Strategy”, in which he appealed to the Dixiecrats, assuring them, through operatives, that he would passively support their efforts at continued discrimination. As far as it being Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Act, that was the aforementioned racist Dixiecrats. God, I just love how the Republicans do their damnedest to rewrite history to try to hide the misdeeds of their racist element.

      • Darrian

        Ideology vs party is too complex for black and white thinkers (2 dimensional thinkers) ….

      • Darrian

        1st of all, the civil rights movement was in response to Jim Crow, not slavery (referring to “ownership of people) Jim Crow was a SOUTHERN phenomenon the same states that are furious about gay marriage , abortion ,immigration law…oh and black Presidents and what not … CONSERVATIVE vs LIBERAL <—- THOSE ARE the optimum words…. those ideologies have swapped hands between party's over the decades….that is the point you cannot grasp…

      • Charles Vincent

        Ignoratio Elenchi Chief the article said nothing of Jim crow, It did however mention slavery and the civil rights act. The first amendment protects the right of freedom of association. Which means they don’t have to support gay marriage or abortion and neither do churches or Obama’s attempt to circumvent congress and issue amnesty to Illegal Aliens. We are a Nation of Laws and if the law says that you have to do certain things to get into this country legally then that’s what they need to do period.

      • Darrian

        Yes we are a nation of laws,the formation of these laws are based on the Constitution (the federal one) the whole pursuit of happiness thing ?……..as to the “Dixiecrats” they no longer exist under that moniker….now they are the tea party…which wholly are conservative , yes?

      • Charles Vincent

        “”Dixiecrats” they no longer exist under that moniker….now they are the tea party…which wholly are conservative , yes?”
        Correlation does not equal causation, being conservative is not the basis for bigotry or hate your premise is flawed and false.

      • Darrian

        The idea of Conservative …on the face of it…by definition is resistant to change to the point of regression…if ain’t broke don’t fix it…. if you will….of the spectrum of politics…

      • Charles Vincent

        And how is that Bigoted or Hateful, to not mess with something that works and in most cases works well? Also How does it hurt you to let others believe what they will as long is it causes no damage to you or your property?

      • Darrian

        Really? You can say the Justice system, the prison system, the educational system (subtext not the same for everyone or unequal , unfair practices) are things that are working just fine? For whom? You ?

      • Charles Vincent

        Freedom means equal opportunity not equal outcomes. Furthermore the things you mention aren’t really working now are they. Could they be fixed? Absolutely. Biggest step to fixing them is to remove government from education and in the case of prison/justice system perhaps moving back to the notion of;

        “General – All corpus delicti requires at a minimum:

        1) The occurrence of the specific injury; and 2) some intentional, knowing act as the source of the injury.
        For example:
        Homicide – 1) An individual has died; and 2) As a result of action (or inaction) by another person.
        Larceny – 1) Property missing; and 2) Because it was stolen

        In essence Corpus delecti of crimes refers to a palpable harm. Where there is no violation of an established right there can be no wrong.”

      • Darrian

        What does any of that have to do with men being created equal ?All of that crap you typed is white noise ….there are people in this country like you that think equal opportunity exists when it doesn’t….and cry foul when the playing field is leveled

      • Charles Vincent

        Equal protection under the law of nature is what all men are created equal means. You really should read John Locke’s two treatises on government.

        ” you that think equal opportunity exists when it doesn’t….and cry foul when the playing field is leveled”
        You don’t know nor could you know what I think or don’t think, saying you do is Intellectually disingenuous.

      • Darrian

        “Freedom means equal opportunity not equal outcomes” Is this not your take? Are these not your words? I’m not assuming anything , I’m acknowledging what I see with my own eyes …

      • Charles Vincent

        It is, but you’re attempting to create a straw man argument. What my comment was relevant to was you don’t know if I think equal opportunity exists or not, nor do you know if I would cry foul.

      • Darrian

        It’s evident by the direction you aim your argument , your defending conservative ideology ….the difference is you dilute your self as to what that ideology entails…which is laid out in this article….remember the article hahaha…

      • Charles Vincent

        Actually I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Moreover I am refuting the premise that all conservatives are bigots that is wholly different.

      • Darrian

        Well that may be true, however modern conservatives have knowingly embrace the bigoted faction openly and a great many of the active base is bigoted, lets put race aside and go with sexuality, hiding behind religious freedom doesn’t absolve you in secular society of bigotry ….now you and a great number of you rs may not agree with this vocal part of your base…you kind of get the guilt by association thing …

      • Charles Vincent

        You mean the Dixecrats who masquerade as conservatives? You don’t know all conservatives, any rational you use to lump them all together is nothing more than a hasty generalization. The first amendment protects the right of freedom of association they are free to not associate with anyone they choose and as long as they do not harm another individual or his property the constitution applies and trying to change that is flatly unconstitutional.

        “you kind of get the guilt by association thing …”

        This is nothing more than an; “Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same.”

      • Darrian

        Listen, by embracing them, your enabling , period…there is no separation….I was trying to be “nice” about it and calling the base of your peers, you don’t happen to like, “dixiecrats” to avoid claiming them as part of your party or ideology to be precise …is laughable…but as long as they vote the way you want you’ll take it, but not responsibility….convenient..

      • Charles Vincent

        Still a guilt by association argument and still false and now bordering on argument from repetition.
        And your argument is still based on a hasty generalization.
        “part of your party or ideology to be precise”
        Again you make a statement on something you don’t know.

      • Darrian

        So…when people who claim to be conservative, also against marriage equality,or listing gay’s as protected from being discriminated in the work place,or as a consumer… I shouldn’t believe them? … it must be a conspiracy …that’s it…

      • Charles Vincent

        People on the left do this as well. Your still making a hasty generalization argument. Bigotry is equal opportunity. Ironically it doesn’t discriminate based on party or religion/lack there of, etcetera.

      • Darrian

        There is a profound difference between,it existing in both parties and embraced and DEFENDED. ….which I can assure you no liberal will defend a racist , pedophile or a bigot ….never mind on national news…

      • Charles Vincent

        AH defection gotta love it.
        “…which I can assure you no liberal will defend a racist , pedophile or a bigot…”

        Lets dispense with race because every human on this planet is the same race and that fact alone makes the term Racist a poor choice of terms.
        Pedophile is a circular argument of your own making and has nothing to do with the topic of this discussion. It is also a hasty generalization in the case of the Duggars which is I presume why you are trying to interject it.

        Which leave us with Bigotry Something the left excells at and does in MSM, sorry chief you are being intellectually dishonest yet again.

      • Darrian

        You just don’t seem to live in reality…I feel sorry for you….there is no more use for this discussion… other than that….have a good one..

      • Charles Vincent

        Let’s discuss reality en shall we. You and Allen have both made the same argument based on a logical fallacy argument called hasty generalization.

        “Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident) – basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.”

        Then you tried to base all your arguments on a flawed premise and you say I don’t live in reality. Good luck being willfully ignorant.

      • Darrian

        It doesn’t change the fact the civil rights movement was in response to Jim Crow….which is a fact …whether or not the article mentioned it…

      • Charles Vincent

        “CONSERVATIVE vs LIBERAL <—- THOSE ARE the optimum words…. those ideologies have"

        Unfortunately for you Liberal in its Classical sense is not what liberals are now. Just like the dixiecrats are now highjacking conservative under the Neo-con Moniker.

      • Darrian

        And what the hell is “classically liberal” ?…..oh I know ” more conservative” please, your not satisfied with changing history, now definition….excellent stretch,but I think you pulled a muscle none the less…

      • Charles Vincent

        The
        simplest terms I would give would be that classical liberalism is
        concerned with the *means* of government, while modern liberalism is
        focused on the *ends* of government.

      • Darrian

        That is, if nothing else, cryptic….Liberalism as an Idea certainly has changed…but that’s the whole idea of this democracy …excuse me liberal democracy….to evolve rather than fester…

      • Charles Vincent

        Well you seem proficient with a computer look up the definition of Liberal and I guarantee I can list things modern liberals do that don’t match up. but here is the definition so you don’t have to go to the trouble to look it up.

        liberal:
        of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.

      • Darrian

        Hence the word evolve…or to progress….to improve….to try new idea’s ,even if they fail….hell the constitution was designed to evolve,not to remain rigid and outdated ….no it’s not the ten commandments or the work of christian fiction, but men’s legacy to themselves for themselves…

      • Charles Vincent

        The constitution isn’t a living document is the set of rules the government is supposed to follow, which gets its Charter from the people, the government bound by it ,but they consistently overstep that.

      • Darrian

        Wrong, it can be amended there fore changed….

      • Charles Vincent

        True. But like the people who wrote it said the law/change has to be consistent with the constitution or the new law/change isn’t a law/constitutional at all. This is stated in the federalist papers. All new laws must stay withing the bounds of the constitution the abolition of slavery is one that did, and Prohibition was one that wasn’t.

      • Darrian

        The federalist paper are not guide to the constitution and have no bearing on interpretation of constitutional law..the federalists papers I would equal as nothing more than and editorial…

      • Charles Vincent

        I never said anything about constitutional law that’s another strawman. Moreover any constitutional Scholar will tell you that both the federalist papers(written by Madison, Hamilton and Jay) and the Anti-federalist papers are key to understanding the meaning and function of the constitution.

    • noah vail

      and you need to learn the history of YOUR party, moron

      • Charles Vincent

        OOOOH wrong chief and yet another ASSumption on your part, and a bit of that hasty generalization I spoke of earlier.

      • traveler19491

        See, Charlie, there you go again, spouting off gross generalizations without any evidence to support your position. You indicate that this article is wrong in relation to the assertion that conservatism has been on the wrong side of history as pertains to social issues, but give nothing but your personal opinion to back up that claim. For example, here’s something you might want to try…it’s called evidence. Give it a shot sometime. I promise, it doesn’t hurt. And sometimes you actually learn something.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

      • Flat Banana

        Come back when you have something better than Wikipedia to go off of.

      • traveler19491

        I understand that it would be too intellectually challenging for you to read the article, seeing as you no doubt had difficulty mastering, “Run, Spot, Run”. Come back when you have ANYTHING intelligent to contribute.

      • Flat Banana

        If you went to College you may understand that professors do not accept Wikipedia, so why use it here?

      • Charles Vincent

        Horrible argument Flat they do allow wiki if its well cited.

      • Charles Vincent

        Wrong it was you who assumed I am a republican and it was you who resorted to ad lapidem nonsense not I. Your new attempt at an argument is the same as Allen Cliftons argument and it’s yet another logical fallacy argument. Correlation isn’t causeation.

  • Flat Banana

    For some reason Allen leaves out that the 19th amendment was originally introduced by Republican Senator Aaron A. Sargent from California in 1878.

  • Jim Valley

    Not only are conservatives wrong on every single issue, their predictions never EVER come true, and in fact the exact reverse of what they predicted always happens. Somehow they all go years and years and YEARS without noticing this pattern. I know that conservatives lack self-awareness, but this seems truly extraordinary even for them.

  • Lilowl

    I’ll tell you what the SCOTUS does — they appoint someone president who didn’t win the popular vote (who then lied us into 2 unnecessary wars that killed or maimed thousands); gutted the Civil Rights Act; brought us Citizen’s United just to name a few. It’s about time they got something right.