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.
The Court ordered that Quinlan be removed from the respirator, if her doctors and the hospital agreed. The appended opinion expanded the 'right to privacy' found in the Roe v. Wade decision to include the right to refuse treatment. Essentially, the Court held that a patient no longer able to communicate may now exercise this 'right' through a family member or duly authorized guardian.
Claire Conroy, New Jersey Supreme Court, January 17, 1985
The Court held that food and water is in the same category as artificial respirators and other medical treatment and may be withdrawn as "extraordinary measures."
Helen Corbett, Florida Court of Appeals, April 18, 1986
The Florida Court of Appeals decided that "a penumbral right to privacy" allowed the patient or a third party acting for her to refuse artificially administered food and water, even with a State law in place prohibiting such withdrawal.
Paul Brophy, Supreme Court of Massachusetts, September 11, 1986
Paul Brophy was the first person in the United States to die as a direct result of court-ordered starvation.
Nancy Ellen Jobes, New Jersey Supreme Court, June 24, 1987
This case vastly expanded the pool of patients whose food and water could be withdrawn, even if the patient had never expressed a desire for such action. In other words, third parties who could "best understand the patient's personal values and beliefs" could substitute their judgment for the patient's. The Court also ruled that, from this point onward, no Court hearing was necessary for health care facilities to gain permission to stop the feeding of a patient or patients.
Also read see this one
Sort of like abortion and homosexual instruction in the children's schools? Like hate speech legislation? Like forced taxation to pay the democrats bills so they can sit around blowing up condoms all day? That kind of force?
As far as we social conservatives are concerned, you are just liberals who want a tax cut.
Isn't there a much greater lack of logic in not believing in God? If I'm wrong I've lead a good life and that its. If YOU are wrong, you burn in hell forever. Which is the more rational road to take?
Excellent future tagline here.
you will bow before our might.
Remind me again who controls congress and the white house? Who passed the prescription drug bill, The biggest redistribution of wealth since LBJ? Which current president is giving more money to the IRS to beef up enforcement? That kind of force!!!!!! As someone said on another thread, christian conservatives are like marxists who believe in god.
"Horrified and saddened by Government interference in a personal tragedy"
The "Government interference in a personal tragedy" is Judges Greer decision and court order that forbids anyone from caring for Terri Schiavo, so she slowly starves to death.
Using Govt powers, they are arreting people who want to bring her food and water.
Terri Shiavo is disabled but is not (contrary to some mythmaking) a vegetable, the *fundamental basis" of Judge Greer's decision: his (mis)diagnosis that Terri is a PVS case. Judge Greer has ordered that Terri Shiavo be killed through starvation, as per Michael's wishes that this happen to his wife. Nothing could cause someone in Terri's situation - disabled but cognizant - more suffering than to be forced to die over a period of 9 days in this agonizing manner.
Yes, indeed there is your Govt interference for ya.
And you whine about those who want to AVERT THE TRAGEDY.
It's really simple to avert btw: Release Terri to the care of her brother and parents, who want to give her therapy, not starvation.
"If they were so concerned about human welfare, we would have Universal Healthcare by now."
Judge Greer is about to kill Terri Schiavo - one person.
Socialized Medicine will kill people wholesale through inferior standards of care.
Why do you want people to die?
"The Congress has no authority to do this, and they are making a mockery of our religious faith and our constitution."
Yes, the Constitutional right to get your wife killed. What a country we are becoming.
The controversy comes about because certain facts are not what they seem and are in dispute. THIS IS NOT A "RIGHT TO DIE" CASE. This is a euthanasia case that is (mis)represented by Felos (Schiavo's lawyer and "Hemlock society" leader) as a right-to-die case; a disabled women is being killed because she cant speak on her behalf, and we are taking the word of her husband that she wants to be killed. Some people don't believe her husband has her true interests at heart. I'm one of them.
http://www.nationalledger.com/commentary/article_1245.shtml
And without my faction's vote, there wouldn't be any President George Bush.
I voted GOP for many reasons. You voted for him because of one issue....you don't like abortion.
I hold my nose on that one...and pull the lever happily.
So, how long have you been a democrat? The myth that most Americans are not covered by some sort of healthcare is just that, a myth. There are what, 300 million Americans? So you wish us to believe that only 6% are covered by a healthcare program? The government was never intended to pay for everything. Have you ever heard of personal responsibility?
The Congress has no authority to do this, and they are making a mockery of our religious faith and our constitution. Have mercy on Terri and her family and let us say good-bye to a beautiful woman.
What does what Congress did have to do with faith? They merely required a Federal Court to rule in this case. Did Congress pass some sort of law that "Terri Schiavo must live" when I wasn't looking?
As if we Christians were afraid to die, afraid of death. We should not fear death. It is natural. God did not intend for Terri to live this way -- she belongs in heaven, she deserves to have peace.
Respectfully, who the H*** are you to decide how God would intend for anyone to live? She is not on life support, just a feeding tube, which supplies her with food and water. This woman is not the "vegetable" that the media would have you believe she is.
You obviuosly do not believe in God. Do you honestly think if God wanted Terri to die, he couldn't take care of it? Do you think God is stopped by a feeding tube? If God wanted Terri to die, she would have died already. What you and Michael Schiavo want is the starvation and slow death of a woman, whose parents would more than happily care for.
If God intends for Terri to live, she will live without machines.
So, I guess you have a Do Not Resuscitate order for your doctors, as that would require interference from God's plan? Maybe, God has a plan for everyone, and the fact that he has kept Ms. Schiavo alive this long tells me that he does have plans for her, and they do not include Heaven at this time.
Take your thoughts to DU or somewhere else that will appreciate your obviously liberal arguments.
We are a government of laws, made by men -- which means they are imperfect -- and not, fortunately, a government where "needs" dictate what is to be done.
The constraints of our Constitution need to be adhered to, whether or not injustices are perceived to be happening as a result of some state or local official's malfeasance. If they aren't virtually everything becomes a federal issue.
That's a prescription for national euthanasia.
As an attorney who believes in the rule of law, I'd like to have your position. I agree that there needs to be some finaility to this. However, at this point, Terri Schiavo's natural rights and inherent right to live are being violated in the name of the rule of law. If the law cannot protect this most basic right, than why even have law?
Let us all have our fates decided by the whims of third parties without regard to our basic right to life.
Whatever the US and Florida Constitutions say about this, I've had enough, let Jeb Bush invoke natural law to save Terri Schiavo's life.
If you're not sure that a certain god actually exists, how can you be sure that a real god unknown to you won't punish you for following a false deity?
I'm not saying I believe this, but there could be a real god who remains hidden and gifted humanity with reason and will punish those gullible fools who refuse to use thier gifts out of fear.
4 out of 5 libertarians and trolls agree with you...
I beleieve what happened, is that this Federal Court Judge (Clinton Appointed) ignored Congress and only ruled on the legality of the initial case. Congress passed a bill requiring an entirely new trial, not just a review of the case
Boy...I wish I'd said that! ;^) . . . . .said the 'conservative' as he was cheered on by the emotional liberals
Apparently, rmmcdaniell feels he/ she is an offspring of some kind of slime. After reading some of the posts he/ she has posted, maybe he/ she is right.
It must be a real bitch to be a blob of inbred elements. :)
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.