This past weekend, what was left of honor and decency in the Republican Party, as reflected in its Congressional delegations, perished. Every protestation of concern for the principles of Federalism, for the Constitutional limitations on the power of Government, for the dignity of Man, was reduced to a lie, far more egregious than one of the many offered by the former President.
The Democrats are, of course, no better. And rather than, themselves, actually face the issue in the Schiavo case, head on, are claiming that injecting it into Congress, is intended as a distraction from the tragic course, continuing in Iraq. Enough!
No Gentlemen, this is not a distraction from the War. This is about something far more contemptible than merely an intended distraction. This is using a poor, unfortunate human body, with some reflexes, but little else still intact, to demonstrate arrogant power, in order to appear to be championing the dignity of life, while actually doing the exact and precise opposite.
Our Founding Fathers understood the principle here, when they charged the British Government repeatedly with interfering with the independence of the local judiciary, in the list of grievances that led to the Revolution. If you are not aware of that, please go and read the Declaration of Independence: Declaration. You surely owe America that much.
The action of Congress in creating a special appeal, applicable to a case, the import of which is clearly limited to the personal heartache, not public policy, is a naked show of power--usurped power, for you will not find it in the Constitution--to interfere with the local Floridean Courts deciding a family issue in Florida. It exceeds just about anything the British Government did to the Colonies to provoke a Revolution. But that is only one aspect of the outrage in progress.
There may, indeed, be a distraction here. But it is not from the War. If a distraction is intended, it is to divert Conservative criticism of the Administration and Congress for what they have not done; what they have failed to do, which they could have done Constitutionally, on issues which really do come under the umbrella of our Federal system--actions which could have freed the States to reassume the control they were supposed to retain under the Constitution, of the health, safety and morals, of their respective citizens.
Congress has no right to impose itself as some Board of Appellate review for State Courts. It certainly has no right to make medical decisions for American families. But it does have the right and duty to define the roles of the Federal Courts, save only for those few categories of cases, specifically entrusted to the Supreme Court, by the Constitution (see Article III). What this means is very simple:
Congress, if it were serious about limiting abortion, could stop the Federal Courts from hearing Abortion rights cases, tomorrow! Congress, if they were serious about the right to prayer in public schools and in State institutions--or seriously believed in the right to publicly display the Ten Commandments--could stop the Federal Courts that have been issuing injunctions against such observances, from hearing such cases, tomorrow. And if George W. Bush was one whit more honorable than William J. Clinton, he would have called upon them to do precisely that.
Understand then, the implications of what these grandstanding politicians have done, rather than what they could have done. Understand the fundamental intellectual dishonesty of these very immoral men--who will abuse a human body in the pursuit of power and publicity--and join your fellow citizens in a wave of denunciation that will shake the Beltway to its rotten core.
William Flax Attorney At Law (Lifelong Defender Of Constitutional Government)
The woman was not termnially ill. She was NOT dying until her feeding tube was REMOVED. Is this not a state sanctioned murder?
Are you saying through your comments that if the Congress believes that the Judiciary is seriously wrong that it cannot do what is within its powers to right it? That would mean that the will of the people or the "Government of the people, by the people" is a fallacy.
U.S Constitution
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress SHALL make.