Mike Huckabee and the Constitution

Although the Constitution is by design a living document that can be amended, I think one of the main reasons it continues to hold such an important place in American political thought is its relative simplicity. The Constitution can still be read in one sitting, in stark contrast to the United States Code. It is still possible to commit each constitutional amendment to memory if you so desire. In my opinion, three factors have helped maintain the Constitution's simplicity. Firstly, those who hold the Constitution in high regard have traditionally been reluctant to alter the document unless they deemed it absolutely necessary, so they sought to implement government changes in other ways than through amending the Constitution. Secondly, chance has played a big role. I'm sure there have always been politicians who have wanted to alter the Constitution to suit their own aims or to mold it to fit to their personal philosophies; we're actually quite lucky that only one amendment, the 18th Amendment, had such a negative effect on the country that it was actually repealed. Most importantly, though, the Constitution is difficult to amend; while a constitutional amendment can be proposed by either Congress or state legislatures, it can only be ratified by a broad agreement of 3/4ths of the state legislatures, an impressive plurality.

Difficult as it is to amend, the Constitution in its present form is considered by at least one presidential candidate to be quite lacking in at least two areas. That candidate is Mike Huckabee, a champion of both a "right to life" amendment and a "defense of marriage" amendment. A president really can be little but a champion of any proposed constitutional amendment; if Huckabee really wanted to be directly involved in the process of amending the Constitution, he'd need to serve in Congress or in a state legislature. Nevertheless, Huckabee has used his position in the public eye to bring attention to two possible future constitutional amendments, and in so doing I think he has displayed his own attitude towards the Constitution. Indeed, Huckabee made his attitude quite explicit with his recent statement that he would like to "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards." Clearly, Huckabee has no qualms about amending the Constitution when he thinks it's the morally right thing to do, but I wonder just what Huckabee wouldn't be willing to amend the Constitution over. If the Constitution is amended to the point where it is merely a reflection of whatever ideology happens to be popular at the time, it will become both complicated and meaningless. Huckabee's whole attitude towards amending the Constitution seems to be too flippant to me -- if he really believes the Constitution needs to be amended, he should make a case individually for each amendment and tell us why a constitutional amendment is preferable to other means of achieving the same goal. As it is, I'm left with the impression that a President Huckabee would uphold the Constitution only after it has been thoroughly "cleaned up" to meet some higher standards. (I'm imagining the governor hovering over the Constitution right now with a pen in his hand and a container of Wite-Out at his side).

Still, Huckabee's attitude towards the Constitution shouldn't cause anyone to reject the amendments he supports out of hand. I certainly think it is possible to respect the Constitution and yet still want to change it; I can't imagine the Constitution without a Bill of Rights, and I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country with legalized slavery and where women could not vote, so in my opinion constitutional amendments have brought about many very positive changes over the years. If, however, not every change is important enough to warrant an amendment, how does one possibly decide on what is worthy of an amendment and what is not? My pet theory is that the best constitutional amendments enshrine the rights of citizens rather than limit their freedom by prohibiting something. So many state and federal laws tell citizens what they cannot do -- don't drive above a certain speed, don't trade stocks based on insider information, don't run around naked in public, don't do this, don't do that. If restrictions can make society as a whole better off without hurting the individual too much, then that's OK (though I do tend to think we have too many laws), but I don't want all this stuff cluttering the Constitution. It's interesting that the amendments that Huckabee supports are often referred to with very positive-sounding names. A "right to life" amendment sounds like an affirmation of what many consider to be a very basic human right. A "defense of marriage" amendment sounds like a guarantee of a couple's right to have a recognized marriage. However, in practice, a "right to life" amendment will prohibit abortion and a "defense of marriage" amendment will prohibit gay marriage -- those prohibitions are the driving force behind the support for both proposed amendments. Depending on how these amendments are worded, they could end up having some unexpected effects when interpreted by the courts. For instance, a "right to life" amendment could end up being the demise of the death penalty, something Huckabee certainly would not support. A "defense of marriage" amendment could also be the last word on polygamy in America. Still, both amendments are ultimately prohibitions, and I don't think either belong in the Constitution any more than the 18th Amendment did. The "right to life" amendment is definitely closer to what I would consider a good amendment than the "defense of marriage" amendment, but there would need to be a much broader consensus in this country on a whole bevy of life issues -- not just abortion, but also the death penalty, health care rendered in life and death situations, and access to prescription drugs -- before such an amendment could or should be passed. I don't think I'm alone when I say I struggle to take a strong stance on many of those issues -- they're controversial for a reason.