A Huckabee supporter points out that Huckabee’s “living Constitution” remark, if taken for its most offensive reading, is inconsistent with Huckabee’s own position paper on the subject of judges, which states:
I firmly believe that the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original meaning, and flatly reject the notion of a “living Constitution.” The meaning of the Constitution cannot be changed by judicial fiat. The powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution come from “We the People,” and judges have no right to prohibit the people from passing democratically-enacted laws unless we have explicitly authorized them to do so. Nor can vaguely-worded language in the Constitution be used by judges to give them power over subjects the framers never intended our founding document to address. As such, any interpretation of the Constitution that is based on “evolving standards of decency,” penumbras, or any other judicial fiction, is antithetical to the rule of law, and must be forcefully challenged.
You never know whether candidates actually write or even read these sorts of papers. Having written many of them myself, I have to wonder. But Huckabee’s written statements are certainly more comforting that the looser language he used in the CNN interview. It makes you wonder why such a silly concept would be floating around in his head.