Replies

"if congress had passed a law freeing any slaves who escaped instead of a constitutional amendment outlawing slavery, would it have been unconstitutional because Dred Scott had already been decided?"

No it would not be unconstitutional. The Dred Scott case/ and following law was not passed hastily after a court decision was rendered to overturn a court decision that was seen as unpopular. This was unprecendented in that the legislature hastily passed a law overturning 10 years of legal battle circumventing the checks and balances process. This is what I deem as unconstitutional IMO.

I would like Chancellor to weigh in on this as he is of higher authority than I with legal matters. TY for calling me on this.

This was unprecendented in that the legislature hastily passed a law overturning 10 years of legal battle.

This is correct: It would have been far better if they had hastily impeached those involved who were corrupt. Unfortunately, that might have taken too long given that an innocent life was on the brink of death.

Truely, the entire situation can be seen as a comedy of errors.

FYI, I went to the ACLU web site, and now that I've taken a shower, I'll post what they're going to argue:

The ACLU said the unprecedented actions of Florida lawmakers and Governor Jeb Bush to undo decisions by the courts and order the reinsertion of her feeding tubes are violations of Florida’s constitutional right to privacy and an unconstitutional intrusion on judicial authority.

...The brief cites Article 2, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution, which prohibits one branch of government from encroaching on the duties of another branch. In this case, the judiciary issued the decision that was reversed by the legislative and executive branches. The ACLU also argues the state law violates Mrs. Schiavo’s privacy rights as guaranteed under the Florida Constitution by interfering with her right to refuse medical treatment and forcing continuation of hydration and feeding tubes against her wishes.

Well there you have it. The question of fact before the court is now : does this act violate article 2, sec 3 of the FLA constitution. Keep in mind, the act never mentions the case by name, all it does is give the govenor power to act in certain cases. Like I said, I'm no lawyer, so I don't know if it will hold up.