Mike Huckabee and Constitutional Interpretation

One of the more common debates about constitutional interpretation is whether or not we should interpret the document according to the original understanding or our contemporary standards. For example, in first amendment jurisprudence, originalists would say that the first amendment allows for freedom from prior restraint but that is all; once a message is published then there can be punishment of speech. On the other hand, in contemporary times, the argument is that the first amendment is absolute; Congress shall make no law means that Congress shall make no law. Limiting interpretation to only these two standards seems to be a reductionist move, but it allows the average person the ability to discuss the constitution.

Last night in a campaign stop in Michigan, Mike Huckabee added a third position: Let's interpret the constitution according to biblical law rather than contemporary standards. On MSNBC's Morning Joe, the show ran a clip of Huckabee stating:

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the constitution. But I believe it is a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that is what we need to do-- to amend the Constitution so its in Gods standards rather than to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary standards that the country needed to amend the constitution so it follows God's standards and not some contemporary standards on how we treat each other and ho we treat the family.

The hosts on the show stated that his comments were in reference to abortion and same-sex marriage. It certainly appears that he is attempting to differentiate himself from his closest competitor in terms of beliefs (Fred Tompson, will believes in a Federal Solution to these issues). Yet, this raises a few very interesting points.

First, what is the role of democracy in this process? Making appeals that rely on God's eternal truths constitutes politics not as consensus or as something people participate in, but a matter of interpreting God's words. While Plato may be proud, Huckabee removes the people from dealing with solutions-- Have a problem, find the answer in the Bible because the Bible is inerrant-- even as he runs on a populist platform, which requires the consent and involvement of the people. Unfortunately, his religious message means that consent from the people does not matter; the only thing that matters is the word of God.

Second, while the former Gov. of Arkansas is pandering to his base and there is little chance of this occurring, adopting Christian Reconstructionist positions-- he has received campaign contributions from Christian Reconstructionist seems to be dangerous for both politics and religion. Let alone that the Bible does not provide a definitive answer on Same-Sex Marriage and Abortion, since it does not mention the first and discusses the second only once and that is in relation to a fine a man must pay a woman if he causes something to happen in her pregnancy, it seems quite dangerous to present legal controversies as theological controversies from one Religion.It is made worse worse when the theological position develops from one or a few denominations within a larger religion.

This also develops an interpretive nightmare since individuals would need to interpret one document (the US Constitution) with another text (the Bible) and these two texts have nothing to do with one another and they never have.

And all of this from a man who is a national leader in the polls and possesses the second most delegates in the primaries. At the last Republican debate, Fox News asked Huckabee if he thought that the Reagan coalition (between social conservatives, economic conservatives, and national-power conservatives) split. Huckabee argued it was.

This, of course, is important because Republicans need all three groups to win, which was the key to success for Reagan and the Bushes. Yet, with comments like Huckabee's on constitutional interpretation, he will not be able to hold the coalition together as the other two groups will turn his back on the former governor.

Update I: I am not trying to make a guilt by association argument with this post. I do not find it a problem when a politician accepts money from radical groups, such as Huckabee with the Christian Reconstructionists. I believe that Ron Paul said it best, when asked about his association with 9.11 Truth Seekers, that he does not believe it but cannot tell other people what to think on the matter-- they should be able to determine the truth for themselves.

The problem with the former governor's comment is that he desires to impose biblical law to determine the outcome of social and legal controversies in the United States. While some individuals believe, through a textual or very narrow reading of the first amendment, that there is no separation of church and state, the Constitution does not allow a Christian Theocracy.

Update II: A campaign spokesperson for the former Governor stated his comments refer to a human life amendment (to eliminate abortion in the US) and that the living God refers to living life in a good way and to respect others. The Campaign spokesperson added: "I don't think it is too complicated over what he said." (From MSNBC.)

While the first aspect makes sense to Huckabees comments, the second does not no matter how "uncomplicated it is." This following mandates of a living God speaks of eternal principles that cannot be compromised.