Posted on 03/23/2005 8:39:18 PM PST by logician2u
Rule of Law Damaged by Schiavo Bill
by Sheldon Richman, March 23, 2005
The events surrounding the life of Terri Schiavo are tragic enough. Now congressional Republicans and President Bush have made things worse. In one weekend they disabled federalism, the separation of powers, and the rule of law. These principles were embraced by the Founding Fathers because they tend to protect individual liberty. By tearing them down, the Republican leadership jeopardizes our freedom. How ironic that this comes at the hands of the self-proclaimed party of limited government.
It is beyond dispute that the legal issues involved in the Schiavo case are state issues. That has been the rule for more than 200 years. It is what has made the American system a federal system. The point of federalism is to decentralize power, and its rationale is that concentrated power is dangerous -- always and everywhere -- regardless of which political party rules.
Years ago Terri Schiavo went into what many doctors describe as a persistent vegetative state without hope of recovery. She can breathe, but she cannot take food or water on her own. Her husband has sought to remove the feeding and hydration tubes in order, he says, to comply with her express wish not to live this way. Her parents have tried to block him from having the support terminated. The Florida state courts have consistently sided her husband. The U.S. Supreme Court earlier declined to review the case because no constitutional issues are involved.
Last weekend the Republican-controlled House and Senate hurriedly passed legislation permitting Terri Schiavo's parents to request the federal courts to take a fresh look at the case -- as if the state court had never ruled. President Bush signed the bill. The case was heard Monday, but the judge refused an emergency order to reinsert the tubes pending a full hearing. The federal court of appeals affirmed the judge's order and the parents are appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Much could be said about this sad case. Terri Schiavo had no living will directing that she not be sustained artificially. We have only her husband's and a couple of other people's testimony, and he may have a conflict of interest involving money earmarked for her care. Others testified that she never expressed such a desire. Yet a trial judge found "clear and convincing" evidence that she did not wish to live this way. Maybe the Florida law has defects, but that's a subject for another day. My focus here is on Congress's and the president's intervention. It was extraordinary and ominous. The bill singled out one case in an area where federal authorities have no constitutional jurisdiction. This makes no sense. At any given time, many people are in medical conditions similar to Terri Schiavo's. In most of these cases, the family members agree to end artificial respiration, feeding, and hydration. No doubt in some cases there is disagreement, but the matter is settled out of the news headlines.
Will Congress now intervene in all these cases? If not, why not? Aren't those lives precious too? That the Republicans intervened in this case, which has been taken up by the anti-abortion lobby (among others), hints that cynical political calculations were at work. A memo circulated among Senate Republicans called the Schiavo matter "a great political issue," indicating its appeal to the party's religious supporters. Is this payback for 2004?
In the end, the bill probably won't prolong Terri Schiavo's life. But it may well cut short the rule of law. It is no defense of the Republicans to say that a young woman was being starved to death. Congress has no constitutional authority to exercise arbitrary power any time an emergency catches its attention, especially where there are no federal or constitutional issues at stake. That it is legally restrained from doing whatever it wants is part of what we mean by the rule of law. That's why its weekend actions are ominous. We must fear for the precedent it has set.
Both the president and members of Congress take oaths to preserve and protect the Constitution. Any time they pass and sign a law thinking they will leave the matter of its constitutionality to the courts, they violate their oaths. The American system has a division of powers, which was violated in this case, but when it comes to abiding by the Constitution, there is no division of labor.
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation, author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine. Send him email.
An excellent analysis as usual by Sheldon Richman.
I've always thought that what separated liberals from conservatives was the emotional appeals (often on the order of the sky is falling) that liberals would toss out at the drop of a hat: "It's for the chillun! We gotta do something! Human rights are more important than any amount of money!" etc. etc. ad nauseum.
But lately, it's getting harder and harder to tell them apart.
As far as I am concerned, the Terri Schiavo case has affirmed that the government and its agents, in this case the courts, are our lords and masters. If they say we die, then we die. It doesn't matter if we have committed a crime.
I agree, but boy, you're in for it! I've been flamed up the wazoo for less.
Technically, the "court" (i.e. George Greer) is the guardian and HE has ordered the starvation. When an abomination occurs in the country, the brave and the free don't just stand there mesmerized bowing to abstract legal principles -- they attack the abomination.
When you're dead, I guess procedure doesn't matter.
On target analysis...thanks for the post, but be ready for the flame-throwers....
Congress didn't exercise arbitrary power, they set the case to go to Federal court, a power that is specifically enumerated for Congress in the Constitution. Of course you knew that.
It is no surprise that an institution in Germany has offered Terri free care.
Around the world, people are taking a new look at the supposed "land of the free".
My husband and I are strongly considering moving to another country before it gets worse here. We have children who are disabled.
But then we thought, why worry? At this rate Americans will qualify for asylum in other countries in a few years.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
It is killing a woman, and if it succeeds, voters will retaliate and enact whatever anti-constitutional ideas are needed to stop euthanasia.
1000 times.
Yeah, where were all you "anti-welfare-state" folks on the SS, Medicare, and illegal immigration threads?
The people who still know what's right and what's wrong can disobey the law if they're willing to pay the consequence. It's called civil disobedience. We do not wait for a court to tell us what's right and what's wrong.
Well .. they don't make me feel better - and I still won't feel any better after the Clinton courts have allowed Michael to MURDER HIS WIFE.
Clinton's legacy = KILLING TERRI
What's more important: the rule of law or the people it serves?
Let's not go down the path where the system is all important.
Sheldon Richman = another death merchant of the left.
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.