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.
But the Catholics say the Baptists are evil and hell-bound and vice-versa. Both organizations are run by imperfect beings, have checkered pasts, and are not entirely reliable. I guess I have the free will to flip a coin and try to avoid whatever version of evil luck would have me.
It sounds to me like you have a problem with Absence of logic, full of emotional appeals, likes to impose beliefs on others.
Everyone assumed on Monday morning (myself included) that an injunction based on Congress's statute was a fait accompli. In retrospect, Congress and the Schindlers' attorneys botrh made a critical error. Congress erred by not prescrbing the grounds for an injunction. The Schindlers' attorneys erred in arguing procedural due process and not asking for releif pursuant to the All Writs Act. I can't kill the attorneys for this becasue they have never gotten a fair shake from Greer. Sometimes you become so vested and so myopic about an issue that you miss the larger pciture. Furthermore, the time pressure since last Friday has been enormous.
Congress intent was to slow the process down, (which is another reason why an injunction should have been granted), they apparently only exacerbated it. I give the Schlinders' attorneys credit for not giving up.
No they don't. We all believe in the resurrection. I'm Baptist. I like Catholics. We just have different worshiping practices, but still have only one Christ.
Where do you read all these wacko theories of yours?
It's ridiculous how obvious and predictable they are. The SAME PEOPLE. I don't know why I keep expecting different.
My point is not to start a new religion, but to show you an instance where you would be wrong that your beliefs have less risk than mine. I can’t prove my hypothetical god any more than you can prove yours, therefore the risk-reward ratio is not a rational reason to follow any god who’s existence can’t be proven.
Exactly! This time I have learned my lesson! At least I hope I have!
Since when is it unconstitutional to ask the federal courts to hear a case?
Perhaps the modern day apostates don't say so, but the Baptists and Catholics of a Hundred years ago were pretty clear about the state of each other's salvation.
This brings me to another reason for not following any of them, their beliefs constantly change.
It's been getting more difficult to tell the Republicrats from the Demolicans FOR DECADES. Both of them have become big-government parties determined to centralize political power from our state & local governments towards Washington, DC...all for good reasons, of course.
Same here....you would think that I was on DU or something by the way I've been flamed. But that's ok, I can handle it.
So you make yourself God. Hmmmmm. Alas, Satan did the same thing.
Simple lack of communication. Once they discussed their beliefs, they found the Great I Am was universal - except for the Muslims. They're still mad about Abraham giving away the goods they coveted. They've never gotten over that.
No thanks.
Amen to that....everyone criticiizes the Dims for THEIR embrace of Big Government & the way THEY temd to centralize power, but when it's done for the issues the wanna-be conservatives hold dear, well, that's a different story!
I don't believe the government should support any social program. Let those who are concerned about a particular issue start a charity or foundation for that issue.
I do believe in a moral fabric, though. Without a moral map, the society falls into chaos. Society becomes a bed of filth and disease.
The moral foundation supports the Constitution. Without that moral base, i.e., the concept of right and wrong, the Constitution becomes a document that depends on the meaning of the word "is", and is no longer relevant. It would be rewritten upon the whim of a judge (and we're just about to that point right now).
You might have made an excellent point about Judge Greer, but it makes me wonder: did he have reason to benefit from making this decision one way or the other?
Even if he did recuse himself, SOMEBODY would have had to hear the case, & what if they agreed w/ him?
>Show me the forth dimension. Show me an atom. Show me love.
>Show me thought.
The fourth dimension is time. Just look at your watch to see it. Atoms are easy to see with electron microscopes. IBM made the news more than a decade ago by manipulating individual atoms to spell out their name. I see love when I look into my girlfriend's or mother's eyes. To see thoughts, just look at this website for a myriad of them. It's amazing what we can see if we just stop and look.
Sounds like you are wearing a towell on your head.
I bet OSL is your hero
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.