Response to Ed Whelan

by Shannen W. Coffin

Of course, you are correct, Ed. Huckabee’s comments are utterly inoffensive to the extent they suggest the democratic amendment process provided for by Article V of the Constitution (as many readers have objected to my post).  I think Scalia intends his remarks to be facetious, as did I.  But the Constitution is generally a stable, static document, the meaning of which does not change over time — a point you and I also agree upon.  While correctly pointing out the single exception from that stasis, Article V, Huckabee adopts rhetoric that is embraced by the Left. That simply suggested to me that he has never engaged on the broader legal and political debates on the Constitution, which is why I called him more clueless than dangerous.  Some readers have remarked that clueless equals dangerous in this context, but I’m not certain that this comment is evidence of that general truth.  Whatever the merits of the constitutional amendments that Huckabee embraces, the fact that he sees a need to amend, rather than reinterpret, the constitution to meet his political objectives is encouraging.

The Corner

The one and only.