After the house passes the bill, & Bush signs it - then send in the US MArshals...
.....Amen!!!
Bush is on it. Just watch.
I AGREE!SEND IN THE MARSHALS NOW!!!
Thats right and this forum was up in arms on how wrong it was. Is this 2 wrongs make a right?
Because George Bush has a lot more respect for the legal process than Bill Clinton?
So9
<< Under President Bill Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno sent in "federal marshalls" to rip Elian Gonzales from Florida relatives and send the boy to Cuba.
WHY then, isn't President Bush urging Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales to send Federal Marshals to Terri's side and protect her from a questionable guardian appointed by a judge who flagrantly violated House subpoenas??? >>
That's because Janet Reno was a KKKli'tonista stooge -- an organized-crime-family apparatchik at the lowest, rudest and crudest "made-man" level [Think Goodfellers/Casino/Joe Pesci] and could and would do her capo's bidding whether that bidding involved mass murder [EG: Waco Texas] or child kidnapping and abduction. [Elian]
And President Bush knows the difference between mobbed-up racketeering and Constitutional Republicanism.
Bill Clinton was a power grabbin' whore. President Bush is a law abiding man.
They should have sent the Federal Marshalls wih the subpoenas!!!!
The Constitutional "scholars" who have been arguing that "due process has been done over and over again" fail to recognize, whether by ignorance or intent it doesn't matter, that due process is not applied merely by going through the motions of procedure but must be manifested with the spirit of impartiality and observed by following the intent of the letter of the law not just its course.
That is why Section 1 of Amendment XIV closes with a conditional statement concerning equal application of the law. It indicates, in fact mandates, that due process must be applied without prejudice or the entire process fails Constitutional muster.
...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The honored legal standing of a spouse's power of attorney should not be in question here and I don't believe it has been. I would not support Congress, the President or anyone else who challenges its traditional standing.
It is time now, however, to actively answer the question raised in this case; "has Judge Greer elevated spousal right of attorney to an absolute that exceeds the individual inalienable right to life?" which is stretching that right beyond tradition or reason. The tradition I speak of is the American tradition embodied in the DoI, "we hold these truths to be self-evident", that life and liberty are the most honored rights of all. In fact they are held as sacrosanct.
If the Dems want to invoke more medieval or Mideastern traditions of spousal rights like bigamy, beating and the right to buy or sell a wife they are welcome to. That's probably not quite as repugnant as infanticide.
Let us also remember that the Jews were duly processed in Hitler's Germany. They rarely failed to follow procedure to the letter.
It seems that the courts can find no fault with the courts. Not so the Governor. The Governor of Florida has called in the Feds.
"I'm not sure we can get it done here in Florida," Martinez quoted (Gov.) Bush as saying just after a new Schiavo measure stalled in the Florida Legislature. "Do whatever you can federally."
It seems the Governor of the State has found no relief and lost confidence in the Legislature and Judiciary and has called in the Feds. It can't now be said that the Feds have no business there.
The Executive Branch wields the authority of enforcement, security and investigation, Congressional investigations aside. Congress should step aside and ask the President to handle this.
Time for Federal Marshals and agents in black shiny FBI shoes.
George, grow a pair.
This is supposed to be a government of checks and balances.
You are the check. It is time to check the liberal judiciocracy and bring it back within the bounds of the constitution...whatever it takes.
If you fail us here, history will revile you. Yours will be the name mentioned in tandem with Neville Chamberlain's.
Using Federal Marshalls is not the solution.
No thanks.
Using Federal Marshalls is not the solution.
No thanks.