I'm all for saving Terri, but this is not a police state.
I would hope so.... Many are blinded by their emotions...
Mike
I am all for saving Terri, but this is damn scary. Talk about a slippery slope.
14th Amendment?
"On what basis would either of them do this? "
On the basis that the Governor of a State or the President of the United States has a duty to protect innocent life.
On the basis that the power of the courts does not supercede the power of the other branches of government.
The Congress and President have concurred in legislation calling for a new look at the facts in the case, anticipating an injunction to replace the feeding tube until the facts could be heard. The courts have refused.
How will the MSM play it? How did they play Waco? Or Elian Gonzales? This would certainly be a milder use of police power than either of those, and others of the Clintonista regime . . .
Absolutely
32All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34Then the King will say to those on His right hand, "Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.'
The result to our nation if we don't giver her drink is disaster. The president's job is to protect us and we will need protection as a nation from God's judgment.
Before you dismiss it out of hand, think about some parallels to Little Rock 1957, where federal troops were called out so a few African-American kids could go to school.
I think there's some potential, but I don't have time to think it through at the moment.
The danger appears to me that Terri will die.
"OMG. On what basis would either of them do this? What authority do they have? Does anybody understand the danger here?"
DANGER??? You are ok nobody is coming after you, which god were you calling for?
Learn More About Executive Orders And About These Tables
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/executive_orders/disposition_tables.html
"OMG. On what basis would either of them do this? What authority do they have? Does anybody understand the danger here?"
Governer Bush would be taking no risk. If he dirrected the state to launch a criminal investigation of the husband and possibly the judge, she could be protected as a witness. If he's just going to follow the judicary, then he's not a leader.
Danger? There's no danger!! Wait a minute, the last time armed troops went roaming around the countryside Republicans were in control then too....
SEC. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.But heck, who cares about the rule of law? I've seen some calling for the Armed Forces, armed revolt, and basically everything else imaginable on this case.
"What authority do they have?"
----
The same Moral authority that was used to save the Iraqi people from insane Hussein.
The same Moral authority they used to send food and water to the Tsunami victims.
The same power's they used to help Florida with Hurricane relief. (I remember seeing pictures of Jeb and George out there with sleaves rolled handing water out to hurricane ravaged citizens).
Don't you know that the abandonment of the rule of law for mob rule and government by fiat is just fine, so long as it is done to advance a social conservative cause? </sarcasm>
The same people who condemned the government over Waco and the handling of the Elian Gonzalez case want the executive branch to exercise the same sort of arbitrary police power here. Because "our guys" are in charge, see, and it is for a cause we support, see.
We have a constitutional, republican form of government, with separation of powers, precisely to avoid this sort of emotionally-driven mob rule. Some, apparently, would prefer a pure democracy with an elected tyrant.
By the same powers that Eisenhower sent 1,000 troops from the 101st Airborne to Little Rock and placed another 10,000 Arkansas National Guardsmen under their command.
And just like Bobby Kennedy sent the FBI into the South to guarantee 'civil rights'. And IIRC RFK & Jack used the US Army also.
What was the danger when Justice Tany announced the Supreme Court decision that black Americans had no rights that needed to be respected by the American government? Can you spell civil war? When the consensus on fundamental life and liberty issues underlying our constitutional system is not upheld by our courts, like in this case and in abortion cases, then our whole system of ordered liberty is at stake. It is that consensus, not any individual law that protects our life against arbitrary abuse by governmental authority.
Yes, executive authority should be used to save this woman's life. There are any number of "excuses" that could be invented including regulations on health care facilities against patient abuse and neglect. Clinton "invented" such an excuse and the public swallowed it and the nation didn't collapse. We must demonstrate that the popular consensus against government ordered and sanctioned murder of innocent citizens continues to exist --that "we the people" will not tolerate this. Liberal's can't complain because they loved it when Clinton interrupted a custody case in process in the courts to kidnap Elian at gunpoint.
This may just be my ignorance of law but it seems to me that there is enough room for judicial discretion in this case for any of the courts to rule either way. They seem to be ruling in favor of legal coherence (for once) at the expense of human life.
As over the top as this may sound, President Bush has the legal right to declare her an illegal combatent. The Military would then hold her under UCMJ until someone files a petition of Habeus Corpes and the Judicial Branch reclaims jurisdiction.
I would imagine this could be strechted out for months, and by that time Bethesda would have run as many tests and therapy as they want.
Our current laws are based on the assumption that the family members of an incapacitated person will act in that person's best interest AND persue their wishes, if any had been articulated.
I am uncomfortable monkeying around with our laws because Michael Shiavo does not have his wife's best interests at heart.
Too bad the Schindlers couldn't have gotten a divorce for Terri in some way or else found proof of MS's maltreatment of their daughter. Somewhere in the last 15 years, legal mistakes were made and we are left with an untenable situation. It is tragic and sad.