Mike Huckabee is tired of your constitutional bullshit

Forget Jade Helm and America’s invasion of America under Obama, this is how you do it

This just in:

Mike Huckabee: As president I wouldn’t rule out using federal troops and the FBI to stop abortions

Appearing at a Pizza Ranch in Jefferson, Iowa, Huckabee said he would “invoke the 5th and 14th amendments for the protection of every human being.”

“Would that be a huge controversy?” the former Arkansas governor asked of the amendments that provide for due process protections,“Yes,” he said.

He added, “I will not pretend there is nothing we can do to stop this.”


Pressed by a reporter as to whether that would mean using the FBI or federal forces to accomplish his goal, Huckabee  refused to rule it out, saying: “We’ll see if I get to be president.”

He seems to think the troops and the FBI will just bend to his unlawful orders. At that level, I’m not sure which is the scariest possible scenario, because all of this Huckabee hot air sounds like he’s just immediately taking it as a given that his will won’t prevail in Congress, make it to his desk for signature, and survive SCOTUS. Will a Prez give an order to the Joint Chiefs that will cause them to say no? Does that refusal approach outright coup at some level? Or do they say yes, so anti-big gubmint Huck says that over this or any issue he’s willing to deploy troops against American citizens for whatever reason?

Let’s think this through. With due acknowledgment to the gravity of the subject matter to both sides of the debate, what we have here is a candidate who is expressly willing to deploy troops on American soil against American citizens on a pretense not covered under the constitution.

Huck says all citizens should be protected, so clearly he means unborn people as well in this context. Okay. But Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines “Natural Born Citizen” as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government”. To my knowledge, nothing in law addresses the citizenship status of the unborn, ergo, not citizens, regardless of where opponents/proponents fall on the personhood part of the debate.

So we have no less than two huge issues here. There’s a process to change the law to make something happen, and then enforcement. He has that completely upside down. So as much as this might appeal to his supporters, and of course it would due to deeply held convictions, are his supporters going to suddenly support the power of big government and let this genie get out of bottle? We’ve spent the last eight years hearing about how Obama’s executive orders are massive, tyrannical overreaches of legitimate presidential power, and sometimes they’ve been right. But now we’re supposed to expect that this kind of massive overreach of presidential power is acceptable just because the cause is different.

If we remember the recent hubbub about Jade Helm and the horror that would ensue, what about this? The candidate expressly states the wish to deploy troops on American soil against American citizens without first addressing the legal issues necessary to even acquire the legal authority to do so.

And for all his talk about due process, how would he determine which women approaching a Planned Parenthood clinic to have the troops shoot? The one going in for a breast cancer screening? The one going in for treatment of PCOS? The one going in to see if her cheating husband gave her syphillis? The one going in for prenatal checkups for the child she intends to keep? Where does he derive the necessary military intelligence to acquire only the right targets? By having government access to protected medical records?

Please note, at no point in this approach have I even had to weigh in on the pros/cons of the underlying debate. There’s no need. When his approach so clearly represents such a fundamental misunderstanding of law, rights, and executive power, the ONLY way he can still be considered a serious candidate is to advocate on one issue alone and throw the entirety of the Constitution out the window.

That’s what tyranny looks like.

5 replies »

  1. Ah, a quibble, and a fair one, at that. I did indeed make the mistake of limiting my notion of citizenship to “natural born” citizenship, whereas Huckabee opened a can of worms by just mentioning citizens more generally, perhaps utterly opening the door to birthright citizenship arguments that will make his answers to immigration reform far more interesting, if unintelligible.

    May I instead direct your attention to the following?

    Constitutional Topic: Citizenship

    Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

    Anyone born inside the United States *
    Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
    Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
    Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
    Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
    Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
    Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
    A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

    So, let’s see. Born, born, born, born, born, born, born, and “any one,” which, in the case of the unborn (maybe a slippery slope to “one”), only applies when parentage is unknown. Something tells me that if a fetus is still in utero, we know at least half the parentage, ergo, not unknown, thus not covered.

    I hope this helps clarify my point. Thank you for calling my attention to my error of hastiness.

  2. Frank,

    Please read your own post where it states as plain as day, the people who qualify under Title 8 of the U.S. Code are “citizens of the United States at birth.” It says nothing about qualifying as Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen for constitutional purposes. In fact, 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998) say precisely that in paragraph (d):

    d. This statute is no longer operative (1790 Naturalization Act), however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

    • While I can concede that my particular point about citizenship as codified was initially hasty and may still be in need of revision (with an assist from someone who knows the law re: citizenship better than I do), I think my main point ultimately still stands. Other than that, I admit to not being entirely clear which position you’re taking.

      Huckabee is the one who made the comment that he’s interested in protecting ALL citizens. I didn’t include that as a direct quote as I wrote the post off the cuff and count on readers to click through to whatever I source to fill in the gaps. I believe, given the context of his statement, that it’s abundantly clear that by “all citizens,” he means to include the unborn as well. Between your first and second clarifications, for which I’m grateful, I still see no mention of anything indicating that any form of citizenship is acknowledged for the unborn, one way or the other. Ergo, a presidential candidate is the one predicating a serious violation of all manner of existing civil rights and appropriate uses of executive power on the begged question of citizenship being acknowledged for the unborn, which, until I stand corrected, is not.

      Meanwhile, while we’re splitting hairs on the accuracy of my substantiation versus the cogency of my reasoning, there’s the big picture, which remains unaddressed. Huckabee has indicated a willingness to deploy American troops on American soil to enforce something on his wish list that is not yet even law.

      Last I checked, we’re still a constitutional republic. We have a system, however corrupted, for the masses, however ignored by the powers that be, to change the law in accordance with their ability to muster the necessary political will to make it happen. Might I suggest something that looks like the following:

      a) Someone with fervent pro-life views wins the Presidency;
      b) Does so in conjunction with a Congress that will pass the laws desired;
      c) Does so in conjunction with a Congress that will confirm SCOTUS picks favorable to those desired laws, which is a likely option in the next 4 to 8 years;
      d) Exercises the necessary party leadership to see to it that those bills are introduced;
      e) Signs them into law;
      f) Rallies the base during the entirely predictable political backlash from the opposition;
      g) Weathers the backlash while challenges are made in court, up to SCOTUS;
      h) Cheers when SCOTUS, for all practical intents and purposes, makes the fervent pro-life law the settled law of the land, until it isn’t again.

      Until that has happened, whatever anyone feels about the pro-life versus pro-choice debate is rather moot. As the law stands, women going to Planned Parenthood clinics are doing so for reasons known only to them and perhaps to the staff. Those reasons, for 97% of the services rendered, have absolutely nothing to do with abortion. And we have a “serious” contender for the highest office of the land who is apparently willing to take all due process rights, all privacy rights, and a list of other rights too numerous to mention in another off-the-cuff response, throw them in the can, light them on fire, and give orders for troops to be deployed, armed and at the ready, willing to put bullets in American women with whom he disagrees on what is ultimately a matter of religious conviction.

      By all means, if you can quote a reliable source indicating that anything from zygote through embryo up through fetus has “citizenship” prior to birth, feel free to share, but do please pay attention to the bigger picture as well and explain to our other readers how Huckabee’s proposal is anything other than a promise to break his oath of office to uphold the Constitution before he even stands the remotest chance of taking that oath.

      Which, as an aside, reminds me:

      Matthew 5:33 “Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.’ 34“But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING. 36 “Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 “But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil. (NASB)

      Since we’re on strictly spiritual grounds where this issue is concerned, what else would we expect from anyone who intends to govern from a position of faith whose first act preparatory to taking office contravenes his own Scripture?

  3. No, Huckabee is clearly delusional. He is just sprouting off in an effort to get press attention and perhaps raise his polling numbers in a last ditch effort to get in on the August debates.

    But this issue over statutory U.S. citizens believing themselves to be Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen, i.e. Sen Cruz, will be played out hopefully, by the US. Supreme Court, prior to the 2016 election.