Posted on 03/23/2005 6:26:35 AM PST by freepme99
Eisenhower was acting to enforce a court order.
And just like Bobby Kennedy sent the FBI into the South to guarantee 'civil rights'. And IIRC RFK & Jack used the US Army also.
There, you may have something. You don't need a court order to fulfill your law enforcement duties, you just do them. However, when you go against a state court order while fulfilling your federal duties, you better have a good federal basis for doing so. If the President can create a legal basis for protecting Terri, independent of Fla. state law, then he can act. He's actually in a tougher position now, after the courts have refused to act, than he was before the federal legislation was passed.
Unlike Nazi Germany, we have the ability to elect a government which will follow our wishes. If the present batch of Congresscritters won't impeach overreaching judges, then elect people who will. If we don't, then we only have ourselves to blame.
I agree, however their is nothing wrong with lighting a fire under the congress we have. That is what I meant by "Popular Revolt". Not so much a literal call to arms, but a demonstration of political will.
If we don't do this peacefully now, we won't have peace in the future.
The executive is not empowered to overturn judicial decisions. The legislature, if it believes that the FL Supreme Court has violated the state constitution, is free to begin impeachment proceedings at any time. If they fail to do so, then elect different legislators who will.
<< The President and Congress stepped WAY over the line on this one ... >>
What absolute bloody rubbish.
Show me a single section, paragraph, sentence, phrase or word in the United states Constitution that grants supremicy to courts that -- but for the supreme court [Which has now given itself more tyrannical powers than George III was capable of even delusionally fantasizing to himself!] -- exist only by the authority of the Congress!
Our Constitution begins "We The People," not "they the bloody courts!"
<< Frankly I'm wondering if the lot of you even know what you're talking about anymore. Because you're not using Constitutional arguments, reason, or anything that resembles rational thought anymore. >>
Projecting, again?
Not using Constitutional arguments, reason, or anything that resembles rational thought anymore has long been the preserve of the nation's courts.
Perhaps its time we stopped kowtowing to their scurrilous lawlessness -- and took the same approach?
For what it's worth.
You give me renewed hope.
Sign me up for the "popular revolt."
Our Constitution begins "We The People," not "they the bloody courts!"
That's all well and good, and I hope you engage in charitable activity in your private life. But in this country, the actions of government are constrained by the Constitution, laws passed by Congress, and legal precedent. We have the power to change things at the ballot box, and thus calls for a popular uprising are highly irresponsible.
I applaud you, Brian Allen.
You have it exactly backwards. The Constitution limits the powers of government, not the rights of citizens.
I repeat: W said "It is always better to err on the side of life." Guess he doesn't really mean it.
I think it is morally wrong, and I hope some legal means can be found to save her life.
My issue is with those who are apparently willing to resort to extra-legal means. That's a dangerous slippery slope.
I didn't see where the decision to starve Terri was on the ballot box - I must have missed that vote.
There is a federal constitutional issue - it's called the 14th Amendment, you may not like that one, but it is still part of the constitution our president and governors are called to uphold.
If Congress doesn't back up that subpoena with force, it will mean nothing. Judge Greer should be sitting in jail right now!
1. A court clears you of charges about your children and give you custody.
2. A mob shows up in Tallahassee and demands that the governor take your children.
3. The Governor, responding to the mob, takes your children in spite of the court order.
Well, that's a risk in any state in the union, that the executive branch would abuse its police powers. In the above case, you could go back to court and get an order to get them back right away, given that you had already won the case. It would be a hassle, and you would be right to ask the state for damages. HOWEVER, if the governor's action is based on new facts that demand his action, he could have a legitimate reason.
For example, suppose that AFTER the court order posited above, information (true or not) comes to the executive branch about abuse by you. Maybe they get new reports that you beat them. Must they then say that they can't act because you are protected forever by the first court order? No, they are empowered to go in and protect the children, and take the matter to court, and then litigate whether the reports of NEW abuse are true.
Terri's case could theoretically be placed in this latter category. The judge's order is lawful, but new information has come to light that makes her starvation potentially murder, and the state has to act now while that new information is litigated.
somehow those lyrics fit this situation so well...I think so, too. Thanks.
You have congressional elections on the ballot. If you are concerned about judicial overreach, then elect representatives who will actually impeach bad judges.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.