Posted on Sep 12, 2015
What the hell is wrong with this idiot? Huckabee: Dred Scott Decision “Remains To This Day The Law Of the land".
3.41K
44
34
6
6
0
The Dred Scott decision was overturned by the 14th Amendment. Evidently Mike Huckabee is more like a Huckleberry. This is unbelievable. Here's one candidate who has already lost.
While defending Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis’s refusal to issue marriage licenses out of her religious opposition to same-sex marriage, Mike Huckabee said Wednesday that the Supreme Court’s 1857 ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford — which held that all blacks, free or enslaved, could not be American citizens — is still the law of the land even though no one follows it.
Radio host Michael Medved quickly pointed out to the former governor of Arkansas that the decision was overturned by the 13th Amendment. (Although the 13th Amendment ended slavery, the birthright citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision.)
“I’ve been just drilled by TV hosts over the past week, ‘How dare you say that, uh, it’s not the law of the land?’” Huckabee said. “Because that’s their phrase, ‘it’s the law of the land.’ Michael, the Dred Scott decision of 1857 still remains to this day the law of the land which says that black people aren’t fully human. Does anybody still follow the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision?”
After correcting Huckabee, Medved then asked the candidate if he would attempt to overturn the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling with a constitutional amendment.
“I don’t think that’s necessary,” Huckabee replied. “Because, in the case of this decision, it goes back to what Jefferson said that if a decision is rendered that is not borne out by the will of the people either through their elected people and gone through the process, if you just say it’s the law of the land because the court decided, then Jefferson said, ‘You now have surrendered to judicial tyranny.’”
“The Supreme Court in the same-sex marriage decision made a law and they made it up out of thin air. Therefore, until Congress decides to codify that and give it a statute it’s really not an operative law and that’s why what Kim Davis did was operate under not only the Kentucky Constitution which was the law under which she was elected but she’s operating under the fact that there’s no statute in her state nor at the federal level that authorizes her,” Huckabee said before Medved cut him off for a break.
Earlier in the interview, Huckabee elaborated on a cutoff of his own, adding to an explanation he gave for his staff’s blocking of Ted Cruz’s attempt to come onstage at Kim Davis’s release from jail, an event he says was “our event.”
He told Medved that he had never heard of a candidate attending “another candidate’s event.”
“I’d never go to another candidate’s event,” he said. “I just don’t do that and I don’t know of any candidate who ever has.”
While defending Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis’s refusal to issue marriage licenses out of her religious opposition to same-sex marriage, Mike Huckabee said Wednesday that the Supreme Court’s 1857 ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford — which held that all blacks, free or enslaved, could not be American citizens — is still the law of the land even though no one follows it.
Radio host Michael Medved quickly pointed out to the former governor of Arkansas that the decision was overturned by the 13th Amendment. (Although the 13th Amendment ended slavery, the birthright citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision.)
“I’ve been just drilled by TV hosts over the past week, ‘How dare you say that, uh, it’s not the law of the land?’” Huckabee said. “Because that’s their phrase, ‘it’s the law of the land.’ Michael, the Dred Scott decision of 1857 still remains to this day the law of the land which says that black people aren’t fully human. Does anybody still follow the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision?”
After correcting Huckabee, Medved then asked the candidate if he would attempt to overturn the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling with a constitutional amendment.
“I don’t think that’s necessary,” Huckabee replied. “Because, in the case of this decision, it goes back to what Jefferson said that if a decision is rendered that is not borne out by the will of the people either through their elected people and gone through the process, if you just say it’s the law of the land because the court decided, then Jefferson said, ‘You now have surrendered to judicial tyranny.’”
“The Supreme Court in the same-sex marriage decision made a law and they made it up out of thin air. Therefore, until Congress decides to codify that and give it a statute it’s really not an operative law and that’s why what Kim Davis did was operate under not only the Kentucky Constitution which was the law under which she was elected but she’s operating under the fact that there’s no statute in her state nor at the federal level that authorizes her,” Huckabee said before Medved cut him off for a break.
Earlier in the interview, Huckabee elaborated on a cutoff of his own, adding to an explanation he gave for his staff’s blocking of Ted Cruz’s attempt to come onstage at Kim Davis’s release from jail, an event he says was “our event.”
He told Medved that he had never heard of a candidate attending “another candidate’s event.”
“I’d never go to another candidate’s event,” he said. “I just don’t do that and I don’t know of any candidate who ever has.”
Posted in these groups: 
Politics
Politics
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 11
9
9
0
This is a joke, right?
An amendment overrides any legal precedence. And I am sure the gay marriage legalization wasn't made "out of thin air" as this has been a struggle for the homosexual community for decades.
I wish people would stop trying to put Kim Davis on a pedestal. She isn't Rosa Parks, she is the bus driver that told Rosa Parks to give up her seat. If you don't like that analogy, fine, lets put it into a perspective that we can all relate to: when your commanding officer tells you to do something no matter how ridiculous, you do it. There isn't a middle ground; sure if you are a SNCO you may be able to advise and convince the commander that the idea isn't feasible but ultimately it's his call and his decision. Our government made a decision, Kim Davis works for the government... She refused to perform her duties- at that point is doesn't matter why- I don't care if a woman (that has violated the sanctity of marriage multiple times and has been divorced three times) feels it's against her religion, it's her job. In the Marine Corps there is a running joke that squashes situations like this: USMC= U Signed a Motherfucking Contract. If she doesn't like it, she can get out of it, she instead decided to deny a legally bound right to a couple. Religion should have no impact on performance of duties.
I know there are plenty of people of all ranks that believe the laws of God supersede the laws of man... Fine. But at the end of the day you are bound by your oath to this nation, you are bound to the laws of man- the bible says slavery is fine, our government says its wrong. According to the bible touching the skin of a dead pig is unclean- yet you probably enjoy those Sunday football games. Reservists and anyone standing duty are working on the Sabbath, should we be put to death?! Are you starting to see why assuming the "laws" of the bible (yes the laws of the bible- not the laws of God- God didn't write the bible; an Ancient Hebrew exposed to a significantly harsher and technologically backwards society did) aren't exactly relevant in the present day, nearly 5,000-ish years after its creation?!
Of course you don't; Kim Davos supporters don't think critically, but they will still try to poke holes in my argument anyways, even though it's a sound argument. Now if you will excuse me, I need to prepare to go to Drill tomorrow and work on the Sabbath, and follow the orders of my commander ( in other words do my damn job, something Kim Davis has a problem with), and then I'm going to go home and watch football and have gratuitous amounts of alcohol to block out the stupid this nation seems to thrive on (myself included since I'm writing all of this). Then after all that is done, I'll check this to see those hole poking Kim Davis supporter responses... And then I will most likely drink some more.
An amendment overrides any legal precedence. And I am sure the gay marriage legalization wasn't made "out of thin air" as this has been a struggle for the homosexual community for decades.
I wish people would stop trying to put Kim Davis on a pedestal. She isn't Rosa Parks, she is the bus driver that told Rosa Parks to give up her seat. If you don't like that analogy, fine, lets put it into a perspective that we can all relate to: when your commanding officer tells you to do something no matter how ridiculous, you do it. There isn't a middle ground; sure if you are a SNCO you may be able to advise and convince the commander that the idea isn't feasible but ultimately it's his call and his decision. Our government made a decision, Kim Davis works for the government... She refused to perform her duties- at that point is doesn't matter why- I don't care if a woman (that has violated the sanctity of marriage multiple times and has been divorced three times) feels it's against her religion, it's her job. In the Marine Corps there is a running joke that squashes situations like this: USMC= U Signed a Motherfucking Contract. If she doesn't like it, she can get out of it, she instead decided to deny a legally bound right to a couple. Religion should have no impact on performance of duties.
I know there are plenty of people of all ranks that believe the laws of God supersede the laws of man... Fine. But at the end of the day you are bound by your oath to this nation, you are bound to the laws of man- the bible says slavery is fine, our government says its wrong. According to the bible touching the skin of a dead pig is unclean- yet you probably enjoy those Sunday football games. Reservists and anyone standing duty are working on the Sabbath, should we be put to death?! Are you starting to see why assuming the "laws" of the bible (yes the laws of the bible- not the laws of God- God didn't write the bible; an Ancient Hebrew exposed to a significantly harsher and technologically backwards society did) aren't exactly relevant in the present day, nearly 5,000-ish years after its creation?!
Of course you don't; Kim Davos supporters don't think critically, but they will still try to poke holes in my argument anyways, even though it's a sound argument. Now if you will excuse me, I need to prepare to go to Drill tomorrow and work on the Sabbath, and follow the orders of my commander ( in other words do my damn job, something Kim Davis has a problem with), and then I'm going to go home and watch football and have gratuitous amounts of alcohol to block out the stupid this nation seems to thrive on (myself included since I'm writing all of this). Then after all that is done, I'll check this to see those hole poking Kim Davis supporter responses... And then I will most likely drink some more.
(9)
(0)
7
7
0
5
5
0
While I wouldn't call him an idiot, his opinion is very dangerous. I'm reminded of a case that went before the Supreme court in 1832, Worcester v. Georgia. In it the Supreme Court decided that Indian tribes were themselves sovereign states and not subject to State laws. This ruling should have prevented the Trail of Tears from taking place however President Andrew Jackson's response was "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" Public opinion in the South was on Andrew Jackson's side so one of the more shameful events in American history took place despite a Supreme Court ruling against it.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google