Posted on 03/25/2005 10:00:29 AM PST by SENTINEL
I see no reason whatsoever that President Bush could not use his Presidential Pardon power to pardon Terri Schiavo. Our founding fathers granted the presidnet this power to protect the individual against evil in the judiciary. No mention is made between civil or criminal cases, and the only recourse from those opposed is the ballot box or impeachment.
President Bush could pardon Terri Shiavo, pick her up in the presidential helicopter, and keep her in the Lincoln bedroom to guarantee her safety during rehabilitation. Terri's mother could file for divorce on her behalf. With access to Terri, the news media and the Demoncrats would be exposed as the pure defenders of evil that they are.
After all of the garbage that went on in the Lincoln bedroom, and the evil pay-for-play pardons that went on during Clinton's term, the MSM would self destruct if they went after President Bush too hard.
Let's get to it Freepers ! We could save an innocent life.
The White House Switchboard (202)456-1414.
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Correct. Therefore, this particular power of the President's is completely irrelevant to this circumstance. Thank you for admitting it.
President Bush is just as justified in acting to help Terri as Lincoln was in going forward with the civil war.
That is a debate worth having. However, you claim to have found Constitutional justification through the President's powers to grant reprieves and pardons, and you are just wrong. If the President has the power to save Terri, it does not come from there.
"I have heard it suggested that she be declared an enemy combatant. Then they would have to take her into custody. Can't be too careful you know. And of course, we would have to respect her rights to food and medical care while she is in custody."
...and make sure you don't put panties on her head....
If he uses an executive order or sends in the troops without any authority, than yes, he's a dictator. And, again, what offense against the United States has she committed that would give the president the authority to pardon her? And once again, I understand the issue here - I believe that withholding food and water from a patient is unethical and barbaric, but I don't want my president, whoever he is and whatever party he belongs to, issuing orders for which he has no constitutional authority.
Who knows, maybe she would respond at some small level to rehab efforts.
This issue is bigger than just Terri. We are in the middle of real-life, good versus evil culture war.
We do not starve innocents, this is not Ruwanda for crying out loud !
Actually, that just might work. It sure seemed to make the Dims care about a bunch of Iraqi insurgents.
However political Watergate was, Nixon was still under investigation. Terri isn't. Using a political scandal as precedent for a largely unrelated use of the presidential pardon doesn't strike me as something we should get into the habit of using.
There will be a liberal Democrat in the White House again, after all. It might not be in 2008 or even 2012, but it will happen.
We have already seen how an evil democrat would abuse pardon power.
Let me ask you this. Would you be more offended that he took Terri Schiavo into custody (no matter what justification he might concoct) or that he signed campaign finance reform?
I think both Bushes were right to exhaust every legal option and stop there. If either of them were to go further, then there is a real danger that it would set back the larger war on the death culture.
Consider for example those who bomb abortion clinics and murder abortionists. Do they prevent abortions? In the short term, yes, some abortions do not occur because of their actions. And yet I think they actually harm the pro-life movement because it pushes fence-sitters away from the cause. In the end, then, I claim that the abortion culture has been prolonged, the enemy strengthened, with more babies killed.
Likewise I feel that there is a real danger of emboldening the pro-death folks here. If feeding tube removal is codified in law in a manner that promotes death, we may have all of this Terri mess to thank for it.
When the states violate the life, or liberty of an innocent, it becomes the duty of the United States to respond.
No, which is why I said "I think." But hey, if you actually believe otherwise, then I can understand why you'd feel more ready to act in extralegal fashion.
He's not going to do it.
Exactly the point made earlier in several threads.
Hey, maybe we *should* go in and "humiliate" her w/all kinds of silly stuff - maybe then the Libs would give a damn!
"Consider for example those who bomb abortion clinics and murder abortionists. Do they prevent abortions? In the short term, yes, some abortions do not occur because of their actions. And yet I think they actually harm the pro-life movement because it pushes fence-sitters away from the cause. In the end, then, I claim that the abortion culture has been prolonged, the enemy strengthened, with more babies killed."
Big difference: those so-called "pro-lifers" were going in to hurt and kill people.
Any1 in this case would be going in to SAVE some1.
"It has to do with black helicopters, asteroids, Anna Kournikova, Starbucks Frenech Roast, Idi Amin and the Teletubbies."
Well, why not. Kennedy is being kept on the 11th floor of Bethesda Navel Hosp.? No, wait, 10th floor....oh darn what floor is it....
I would still like someone to compare their outrage at possible Bush "unconstitutional" action to save the life of Terri Schindler and his signing campaign finance reform.
"Anybody got the "Oh, no, not this $$$$ again!" JPEG?"
Awwwww, your wording works just fine!
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.