Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BREAKING: Coalition Calls Upon Bush to Save Schiavo's Life by Using Police Powers
http://www.earnedmedia.org/cfts0323.htm ^

Posted on 03/23/2005 6:26:35 AM PST by freepme99

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 381-386 next last
To: AMDG&BVMH

Excellent idea!


321 posted on 03/23/2005 9:49:14 AM PST by TAdams8591 (The call you make may be the one that saves Terri's life!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
Congress has not asked that the Bush administration enforce the subpoena.

They don't have to ask for the Bush Admin to act. The very act of issuing the subpoena is a request to the executive to act.

Since when does the Congress have to ask a President to act on the acts they pass in order for the President to do anything?

322 posted on 03/23/2005 9:49:41 AM PST by ksen ("He that knows nothing will believe anything." - Thomas Fuller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: clee1

BAD IDEA.


323 posted on 03/23/2005 9:50:11 AM PST by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestus globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
The courts, again, disagree with you.

All hail the all-powerful courts.

324 posted on 03/23/2005 9:51:46 AM PST by ksen ("He that knows nothing will believe anything." - Thomas Fuller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: malakhi

It's a grey area, but the Exectutive can simply ingore them, or issue an executive order.

The legislature can establish (or remove) jurisdiction.


325 posted on 03/23/2005 9:51:58 AM PST by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: ksen
My point is, you can rail about this being "extra-legal" all you want, but courts on every level have ruled against the Schindlers. Continuing to insist that the actions of the court are somehow "illegal" is an exercise in delusion.

There is one constitutional way to get rid of bad judges. Impeachment.

326 posted on 03/23/2005 9:56:48 AM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
The Constitution limits the powers of government. It does not limit the rights of citizens. The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to legislate the private relations of citizens.

The Constitution is silent on murder. So, the citizens are free to murder as a retained right in your line of thinking.

The Constitution is silent on buggery. So, laws against sodomy are unconstitutional under your line of thinking.

The Constitution is silent on drug use. So, laws against drug use are unconstitutional.

Your views on the Constitution are absurd. To the extent that rights were "retained by the people" under the bill of rights, those would have been rights recognized at English common law in 1789 but not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

You are right that the Constitution sets forth a limited form of government. Congress is authorized to act only on the types of legislation enumerated, the Executive is authorized only to act in accord with that legislation and the other powers given to him under the Constitution, and the judiciary is only to interpret those laws and the cases listed in the Constitution. Among the rights involved in the Constitution, as amended, are those that guarantee that citizens shall not be deprived of life or property without due process of law. This grants the Federal government rights to examine issues such as Terri's.

There is no similar provision that protects the individual from State action with respect to so-called "privacy" issues. If they involve search and seizure, then the 4th amendment comes into play. If they involve punishment, then the 8th amendment comes into play. Civil rights, 14th.

But if it involves condoms, sodomy, welfare, midnight basketball, criminal procedure, employment law, etc., etc., there is no basis in the Constitution for federal involvement. The only reason the feds are involved is because of the expansive reading of the Constitution that came about under Roosevelt and continued apace to the present day. Now, as I learned in law school, there is NOTHING that the feds can't get involved with if they want to, under the "interstate commerce clause" and the "necessary and proper" clause. The only things left to the states presently are at the grace of the Feds.

All states in 1965 were allowed to outlaw or allow contraception.

All states in 1955 were allowed to outlaw or allow Jim Crow laws.

All states in 1955 were following the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of, as I recall, 1898, which decreed that separate but equal did not violate the 14th amendment. That decision was as wrong as the 1965 decision that found a right to privacy in the Constitution. Let's hope it doesn't take as long to correct the 40 year old Griswold decision as it took to correct Plessy v. Ferguson (67 years).

Your line of logic does not compute. It goes like this:

1. Courts had a bad decision that was in effect in 1955, and which governed all states. 2. Courts corrected it (actually, it was corrected in 1954 in Brown v. Bd. of Education). 3. People in 2005 agree with the correction, and no one today would argue that Plessy v. Ferguson was constitutional. 4. Therefore, court decision in 1965 creating a non-existent right to privacy is good, even though it changed all state laws, because changes to state laws are always constitutional if the Supreme Court says so.

You have a muddled way of thinking. I recommend you read transcripts of Scalia's latest speeches and that you buy and read Mark Levin's latest book, Men in Black. Then, think about it a little. Then, whatever you continue to believe, at least it will be a little more educated.

327 posted on 03/23/2005 10:00:08 AM PST by Defiant (Make unconstitutional rulings unconstitutional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
The Constitution is silent on murder.

In nearly all cases, murder is prosecuted under state statutes. See my previous post. I explicitly said, "federal government".

There is no similar provision that protects the individual from State action with respect to so-called "privacy" issues.

Implicit in your words here is that the government can do whatever it wants unless the rights of the citizenry are explicitly protected under the Constitution (as against illegal search/seizure and cruel and unusual punishment). But that is precisely why the Ninth Amendment was included:

NINTH AMENDMENT. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Your line of logic does not compute.

You misread my very simple point. That something was considered constitutional at some previous point in time doesn't mean that it was rightly held to be so.

328 posted on 03/23/2005 10:15:42 AM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: pa mom

The calls to send in the Marshals or the FL Nat'l Guard will go unheeded, as will the ultimate application to the USSC.

NO politician will take the risk to his office, legacy, or future in the melee that would follow.

As much as I hate it, Terri will die barring a miracle from the Lord.

I see this as the opening shot of a much larger revolution.


329 posted on 03/23/2005 10:31:23 AM PST by clee1 (We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Sicon

I agree with you completely, but, the actions you avocate have been the basis of challenges to POTUS before.

My point was that the only REAL risk to the President by taking this course is possible impeachment. Given the current makeup of Congress, I don't see that happening.

Those that risk little, gain little.


330 posted on 03/23/2005 10:33:57 AM PST by clee1 (We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

I didn't say it wasn't.

I don't support the seizure of Terri by Federal Marshals or the FL Nat'l Guard. It is, however, her only chance left.


331 posted on 03/23/2005 10:36:06 AM PST by clee1 (We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

Comment #332 Removed by Moderator

To: malakhi
Impeach them.

You don't have 67 votes in the Senate.
Nor is either side going to get 67 votes in this century.
So Congress has no power.
333 posted on 03/23/2005 10:44:16 AM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: AMDG&BVMH
It comes down to getting at least one of the two Pontius Pilate brothers to stop the posturing of helplessly washing their hands and actually take Terri into protective custody in order to save her life:

Governor Jeb Bush: 850-488-4441

President Bush at the White House: 202-456-1414, 202, 456-1111

334 posted on 03/23/2005 10:45:32 AM PST by Viva Christo Rey (May GOD & St. Philomena save Terri Schiavo from the EVIL USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; ...
Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

335 posted on 03/23/2005 10:46:42 AM PST by cpforlife.org (The Missing Key of The Pro-Life Movement is at www.CpForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama; A2J; Agitate; Alouette; Annie03; aposiopetic; attagirl; axel f; Balto_Boy; ...

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

336 posted on 03/23/2005 10:51:34 AM PST by Mr. Silverback ('Cow Tipping', a game the whole family can play!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
You don't have 67 votes in the Senate. Nor is either side going to get 67 votes in this century. So Congress has no power.

Should Clinton not have been impeached, because there weren't enough votes in the Senate to convict? Do it anyway! Find the most egregious example you can, and vote to impeach. There have been judges removed in the past.

337 posted on 03/23/2005 10:52:38 AM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: oneday
You've been offered a decoder ring for the ....

THE 'VAST LIFE-WING CONSPIRACY' AGAINST 'poor wittuw michael' SCHIAVO [FR Link page]

For someone to believe Michael, one would have to think that everyone is conspiring against him. It's actually a major tin-foil conspiracy to think that her family, the President, Congress, Rush, Hannity, Savage, the Pope, many FReepers, many bloggers, Newsmax, WND, various nurses, various doctors, etc. are conspiring against Michael Schiavo.

Also... large link cluster

!!! NEVER SAY DIE !!!

338 posted on 03/23/2005 10:54:52 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (<<<< Profile page streamlined, solely devoted Schiavo research)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: All
Just called the contact on the press release Joe Giganti, 703-928-9695...very friendly guy.

The press conference will be on Fox and CNN today...He believes Sean Hannity will also have it on his show.

339 posted on 03/23/2005 10:57:41 AM PST by Lady Eileen (God Save Terri. God Save America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Twinkie
Back in the sixties, I was all for the black kids getting past Governor Wallace blocking their way into the school in Alabama, but, of course, it never happened since this is not a police state. In fact, they are still segregated in Alabama aren't they?

The difference there was that the federal government used Marshals and soldiers to enforce a court order. Here, such use of Marshals and soldiers would be for the purpose of disobeying a court order.

Once we allow the President to use force to overturn an unpopular legal decision, we have taken the first steps toward dictatorship.

340 posted on 03/23/2005 11:02:26 AM PST by Modernman ("They're not people, they're hippies!"- Cartman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 381-386 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson