Any amendment referencing God may far reaching effects we are not prepared to accept. Those far reaching effects are future rulings by the Supreme Court when they have to balance Huckabee's amendment with other amendments in the US Consitution in order to make a ruling.
The purpose of the US Constitution is to define the powers of government and the limitations of those powers. Any amendment [that dictates man's interpretation of God's will] may be a dangerous precedent.
I'm not saying that the amendment itself is bad. I'm talking about the effects of the amendment. Before I decide my bias for or against an amendment, I want to listen to a discussion by Constitution experts on how this amendment will change the Supreme Court's view on freedom of religion and on the Establishment Clause. I also would like to hear from experts on if this amendment might trigger religious hostilities [including terrorism] in our country.
I think Huckabee spoke carelessly. We have a democratic republic. I wish politicians would not risk compromising the Bill of Rights by advocating amendments without due diligence.
The problem is that politicians are saying what they think voters want to hear. Or, more accurately, what they think will sway voters to their own camp.
Hillary accuses Barack of of being in bed with a Chicago slum-lord. Truth is Barack did about five hours work for said slum lord. Barack accuses Hillary of wasting her time as a Wal-Mart corporate goon. Truth is... aw heck, the truth just plain gets lost this time of year.
Huckabee wants the Christian conservative vote. (I can't fathom why. They just aren't that many right-wing whakco Christian extremists.) He makes vague promises about theoretical constitutional amendments in an attempt to get those votes.
I think I'll hold my nose and vote for Rudy. (Assuming he's still in when my state's primaries are held, that is.)
We disparately need a viable third party. That's "viable," mind you - not "Libertarian."