BREAKING: Coalition Calls Upon Bush to Save Schiavo's Life by Using Police Powers

http://www.earnedmedia.org/cfts0323.htm ^

[freepme99]

Press Conferences in Washington and Tallahassee on March 23 at noon.

To: National Desk

Contact: Joe Giganti, 703-928-9695, Joe@VeritasMediaGroup.com

WASHINGTON, March 23 /Christian Wire Service/ -- The 11th Hour Coalition to Save Terri Schiavo's Life will hold simultaneous press conferences -- Wednesday, March 23 -- at 12 noon in Washington, D.C., and Tallahassee, Fla.

This ad hoc partnership of religious and political organizations -- which will gather in front of the White House and the Florida governor's mansion -- will call on President George W. Bush and Gov. Jeb Bush to use their executive powers to protect Terri Schiavo from starvation.

"There are two people in the United States who can save Terri Schiavo's life right now. The president of the United States and the governor of Florida have the authority to use the police services at their disposal to take Terri into protective custody, restore her food and hydration, and arrest anyone who would interfere," said Dr. Paul Schenck, executive director of the National Pro-Life Action Center on Capitol Hill. "For the sake of Terri's life, we cannot afford to wait while the courts dither over jurisdiction."

Dr. Paul Schenck, National Pro-Life Action Center on Capitol Hill

Coalition Members appearing at the press conference:

-- Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests for Life

-- Stephen G. Peroutka, Esq., Face the Truth TV & Radio

-- Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, Human Life International

-- Michael A. Peroutka, Esq., Institute on the Constitution -- Rev. Greg Cox, Faith and Action

-- Rev. Stephen Cox, Gospel of Life Ministries

-- Rev. John Vandenberge, National Clergy Council

[MineralMan]

"What we really need is a popular revolt and demand the impeachment/purge of our Judicial System."

That's silly. You are aware that it was a Clinton appointee who was the lone dissenter in the 11th's decision, are you not?

What you are really calling for is the complete dismantling of the judicial system. What that would mean is a complete throwing out of our Constitution.

Judges rule on laws. You may not like their rulings, but there it is. Your favorite conservative judge, like your favorite conservative congressperson, may not always agree with your personal likes and dislikes.

That is how it works. If you want to change our system of govenment, then you need to rewrite the Constitution. Until you do, it ain't happening, and I can pretty much guarantee that the Constitution is not going to get an overhaul anytime soon.

[Mother Mary]

>>"Moral authority" does not authorize executive action. Legislation enabling the action does.<<

Fidelity to their OATH of OFFICE enables executive action.

[dennisw]

But Jeb Bush could appoint a special prosecutor today who would demand to the court that the feeding tube be put back in. A special prosecutor would put the fear of GD into Micahel Schiavo. That he will be prosecuted for various crimes against Terri.

M Schiavo will order the tube be put back in.
What would you do if you were Schiavo

[sharkhawk]

Actually I have no problem with the Executive overruling the courts.

Wait until President Hillary decides that Health is a right by executive order.

[Dead Dog]

It ain't over yet. I just heard an interview this morning with one of the Schindler's Lawyers. He made a pretty good argument that the law was to put this case into federal court, not as an appeal or review of the past cases, but as an completely new hearing. The Clintoniesta judge CHOSE not to do this, and instead acted as an appeals court.

According to them, this should have been given a new hearing (and by Jury) that would have called into question the original ruling that she was in a PVS.

[clee1]

Yeah, but I've had a few FReepmails from those that "disapprove".

[ksen]

Then blame Congress for the failure to enforce their subpoena.

It is the Executive branch's job to enforce.

The legislature can only pass things, the judicial branch can only render judgments, it is the executive that makes sure it happens.

[KidGlock]

this is damn scary. Talk about a slippery slope.

I agree.

Sending out the police would give a liberal president or governor a precedent to send out troops to support their liberal view on abortion, death penalty, Iraq war etc.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"Actually I have no problem with the Executive overruling the courts."

I didn't say that, myself. No worries. I'm the guy saying it would be a gutsy move to pardon political prisoners arrested for civil disobedience. That's within the bounds of the Constitution, and it also is what the pardoning power is all about: mercy, not for pardoning crack dealers for cash.

The rats would be over a barrel because their royal family the Clintons had abused pardoning powers in very hideous ways.

[Dead Dog]

Nope, I'm calling for the legislature (state and federal) to exercise their constitutional power real in an out of control Judicial Branch.

It's not dimantling the constitution, but restoring it. The Dismantling was done by Activist Judges. Who appointed them doesn't matter, Reagan appointed some losers also.

Judges don't always rule by law, the law is merely a forcast of what a court will decide. Unfortunately. There is always and element of interpretation.

[mrsmith]

"Terri has been supoened to appear before a Congressional committee- that alone gives justification to preserve her life. "

Since she could give no testimony I don't see that. Congress could order that she be kept alive to preserve evidence. That may require further legislative action.

The old (lex parliamenti ) way:
"The rudiments of the power to punish for "contempt of Congress" come to us from the pages of English history. The origin of privileges and contempts extends back into the period of the emergence of Parliament. The establishment of a legislative body which could challenge the absolute power of the monarch is a long and bitter story. In that struggle, Parliament made broad and varied use of the contempt power. Almost from the beginning, both the House of Commons and the House of Lords claimed absolute and plenary authority over their privileges.
This was an independent body of law, described by Coke as lex parliamenti. Only Parliament could declare what those privileges were or what new privileges were occasioned, and only Parliament could judge what conduct constituted a breach of privilege.

In particular, this exclusion of lex parliamenti from the lex terrae, or law of the land, precluded judicial review of the exercise of the contempt power or the assertion of privilege. Parliament declared that no court had jurisdiction to consider such questions.
In the latter part of the seventeenth century, an action for false imprisonment was brought by one Jay, who had been held in contempt. The defendant, the Serjeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons, demurred that he had taken the plaintiff into custody for breach of privilege. The Chief Justice, Pemberton, overruled the demurrer.
Summoned to the bar of the House, the Chief Justice explained that he believed that the assertion of privilege went to the merits of the action, and did not preclude jurisdiction.
For his audacity, the Chief Justice was dispatched to Newgate Prison. "

[Reborn]

Please re-read what I wrote. I did not say people shouldn't be emotional. I myself am angry, sad, and disheartened at this. However, redirecting my anger to those who don't agree with me, rather than at Michael Schiavo and the judiciary, is counter-productive.

Kiddo, I agree with you. That is why I started out my last post saying that I understand what you are saying! The remainer of my comment wasn't added for your benefit, but for some others who seem to equate emotions with evil. Emotions are good and needful, but name calling, etc, is not. This whole situation is so incredibly sad. Sorry if I came across wrong, love.

[MineralMan]

I'm sure some disapprove of your tagline. I know that I do. It advocates the use of force. You think it's cute, I'm sure, and maybe even humorous. I disagree, but I won't do so in a Freepmail. I'll do it right here in public.

Of course, I realize that it's an empty threat, but there you go.

[Antoninus]

Actually, they would not stand down.

You're telling me they'd use deadly force? I HIGHLY doubt it.

But your wish will not happen in any case. Very few protestors have even bothered to appear at the hospice, and those who have have been peaceful.

Protesters who entered the hospise--refusing to obey an authority who protects an immoral judicial order--would by definition be peaceful. Any actions taken against such people would be immoral and have to be violent. As for the 'few' protesters--let's wait and see.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"Sending out the police would give a liberal president or governor a precedent to send out troops to support their liberal view on abortion, death penalty, Iraq war etc."

That's why we have the impeachment clause. If someone drags an innocent kid to a communist hell hole, that might be impeachable. If someone tries to rescue a mass murderer, he might as well start clearing his desk and shredding his papers. But if someone tries to rescue Terri after all that's come out [the lifted gags], then while unpopular now, it will be better understood very soon by the majority.

I would prefer civil disobedience to solve this, however. That is supposed to be another one of our checks-and-balances, the most important one: how do we, as citizens, use our freedom? If people are not willing to stick their necks out for her, then they have no right to criticize the president. FReegards....

[Antoninus]

Sending out the police would give a liberal president or governor a precedent to send out troops to support their liberal view on abortion, death penalty, Iraq war etc.

Since when have Democrat politicians needed a precedent for anything?

[TAdams8591]

Praying the prwsident or the governor act. Send marshalls to enforce the congressional subpoena, and get Terri out of there.

[verity]

This seems to be such a bunch of hysterical agenda-driven nonsense.

[MineralMan]

"Protesters who entered the hospise--refusing to obey an authority who protects an immoral judicial order--would by definition be peaceful. Any actions taken against such people would be immoral and have to be violent. As for the 'few' protesters--let's wait and see."

OK. So, when are you arriving in Pinellas Park?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

I repeat:

I would prefer civil disobedience to solve this. That is supposed to be another one of our checks-and-balances, the most important one: how do we, as citizens, use our freedom? If people are not willing to stick their necks out for her, then they have no right to criticize the president. FReegards....