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.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Perhaps you'll be happy in Europe where the government dictates the amount of care you can recieve. Disabled and the old have low priority.
This guy Richmond is so far out in left field that he is outright STUPID. The judical needs damaged. Our judical is OUT of Control and as Americans we all live inder a JUDICIAL DICTATORSHIP.. If Richmond like it that way, then move somewhere where he can flourish under a system like that, BUT NOT HERE IN AMERICA.
to bad richmond, you didn't score any points with this acticle
We her a lot of talk about the "separation of powers" in the Terri Schiavo case, but how many times has the Legislature passed laws that the Judicial Branch overruled?
It seems that the separation of powers doesn't refer to the Judiciary who thinks of itself as the prime source of our laws.
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.
Maybe someone should tell this to the Supremes who seem to concentrate more and more power in their own hands as the years pass.
Which Branch of government says that it and it alone knows what the Constitution means?
Which Branch of government talks more and more about incorporating foreign laws into our body of laws since our Constitution hasn't "kept up"?
Which Branch of government sees the Constitution as a living document that can be changed at the will of the justices?
For once Congress got a bit of spine and tried to "do the right thing". It's time our Congress told the High Court that there are limits to their authority, and that they are one of three "coequal" Branches of government - not the overlords of government.
No, what seperates conservatives from liberals is the former have respect for life. Some day you'll appreciate that.
Wow, disagree and you're a merchant.
He did this by discounting the testimony of a friend that contradicted Michael. This claimed that a then 19-year-old Terri was upset that right to die icon Karen Ann Quinlan's parents removed her from life support, the Judge discounted the testimony, reportedly because the Judge said Quinlan died in 1976. The problem, Quinlan died in 1985. Today, March 23, 2005, judge greer admitted his mistake. Now I should think that any reasonable person would consider that maybe this person's testimony might possibly be credible now. Not ever seeking truth Judge Greer.
Link: http://www.tampabays10.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=12420
This article's title should be "Rule of the Judiciary Damaged by Schiavo Bill". What gall do those elected officials have, to think that they can challenge our Supreme Oligarchal Ubermensch?
Really, it's Greer who's opposed to the Rule of Law. It's Congress's word that's the Law, not the courts'. This guy really needs to buy a copy of the Constitution. It's useful if you're going to be talking about politics.
What we are witnessing is rule by whim, a step along the path to anarchy. It is not pretty.
Something reeks in here..
Welcome to Free Republic.
Drive carefully.
On the contrary, I'm learning quite quickly how similar you social christians conservatives are to the dumb, emotional liberals.
IF IT JUST SAVES OOOOOONNNNE LIFE DESTROYING THE CONSTITUTION IS WORTH IT.(said with whiney liberal voice)
Check the date.
It's more than a disagreement, it's a LIE. When you lie to contribute to the murder of a fellow human being, you're at least a death merchant, if not worse.
What is your problem with religion?
Not even equal protection? When activists are able to raise doubt about the fairness of a trial that convicted a murderer he gets the benefit of doubt. But not Mrs. Shiavo?
Good thing Helen Keller was born when she was. Steven Hawkins had better watch out though.
One thing that I know for sure is that people on one side or other are lying! And when this is over with I want an accounting, please.
And just what is a "constitutional crisis." To wit, the Congress expected the federal courts to evaluate the facts, if I understand the purpose of last weekend's legislation. The courts did not.
The Congress can "ordain and establish" inferior courts. The Congress is not inferior to those courts -- and the Congress is suppose to be equal to the Supreme Court.
If a crackpot mullah (judge) decrees that the Constitution did not mean that every president should be the commander-in-chief but in modern times the commander-in-chief can be appointed by the U.N. would the president submit to avoid a "constitutional crisis"?
Nancy Cruzan was the Roe vs Wade of euthanasia. Since then we have all been asleep at the wheel, while the courts piled on more and more precedents.
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.