Posted on 03/21/2005 8:12:36 AM PST by wcdukenfield
The right to live, or more specifically, the right not to be killed, is a fundamental right. And it's a right recognized in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. So ingrained in our society is the notion of life, that the 8th Amendment prohibits "cruel and usual punishment" (even short of death) and the 14th Amendment prohibits states from depriving any person of life without due process of law. This has nothing to do with federalism, unless you ignore the 8th and 14th Amendments. (Unlike the Left, that contorts the 14th Amendment, I'm recognizing its literal meaning.)
What really offends the Left is Congress asserting its constitutional power over a court, and not in service to the liberal agenda. Article III specifically empowers Congress to determine the jurisdiction of the federal courts, which is all it did today. It authorized a federal court to determine whether Terri Schiavo's due process rights and the right not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment were properly protected by a state court. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decided on its own that abortion was a federal question, not to be left to the states, without any constitutional basis whatsoever. It preempted every state court and legislature (and Congress, for that matter). And the Left celebrates this decision.
As for why Congress is acting here, as opposed to any other case with overlapping issues, I suppose that question could be asked whenever Congress acts. The Schiavo case has risen to national attention. So, Congress is responding. That's how representative government works. The week after the Titanic sank, Congress held its first hearings to change U.S. maritime laws.
We must not allow the Left to define the terms of this debate. It is willing to make almost any argument to protect the supremacy of the courts. And even though Congress here is instructing the federal courts to review the case, the Left objects to any congressional exercise of constitutional authority over the judiciary. As Rep. Jim Moran (Dem, VA) said yesterday, "The judiciary has spoken."
Keep pluggin', bro.
BTTT!
Well stated.
So do you believe it is safe to say that the liberals' stance on this issue is due not only to their glorification of the culture of death, but also their need to maintain the inappropriate level of power that currently lies within the judiciary?
BTW, and this is a side question, has the Ninth Amendment every been used to argue that supposed "rights," such as a right to die or a right to privacy, actually exist, but were simply never enumerated in the Constitution? How would one counter that argument?
This is the one thing that pisses off the Left about our form of government: It's meant to serve the people. The Left hates to serve the people, instead, it wants the people to serve them.
Whoops. Every = ever in post #5.
Nice job, Mr. Levin.
yes, exactly. well-said
Exactly.
I heard a factoid tossed out by a CNN babe this morning that I had never heard before. She claimed that it was an accepted medical fact that Terri Schiavo's cerebral cortex is "liquified". What the heck is up with that? A liquified brain? And how would they know, since they don't want an MRI or PET scan done on her?
Enjoyed reading this.
Had someone bring up the judiciary angle this morning and how the liberals want to make sure the judiciary continues to legislate from the bench with their rulings and not be subject to any oversight by the legislative branch.
the "liquified brain" might have come from quoting Michael Schiavo, I saw a clip of him recently saying the same thing. It's all part of his campaign to kill Terri, IMO.
Holey cow! IT is so simple, isn't it? Very well said and I agree.
The recent National Review has a story of attorney Tribe boasting about his use of the unenumerated rights argument (that is, the Ninth Amendment argument) when arguing one of those abortion cases in the US Supreme Court. Casey, I believe.
Turns out, he did not really do that and the Ninth Amendment received only a very limited play in the Supreme Court's ruling.
You raise a very good question, but it need rephrasing. Can right to kill be among the unenumerated rights? The answer is self-evidently No because otherwise the entire notion of rights crumbles.
The left is so exercised over Schiavo because it is a right to kill case, just like any abortion case is. Their maneuver is to color it a right to die case, just like they colored abortion as a privacy case, or equal protection case. These are all obfuscations. There is nothing less at stake here than legal sanction for murder. They should not get away with it.
Does anyone know if Terri is able to receive water? I've heard that as long as she can swallow her saliva, she CAN be fed and hydrated orally. Yet, others have said she can't swallow, that's why the feeding tube, so she can't be fed orally. What about water?
The whole point of the separation of powers is to give citizens recourse to redress should one or another of the institutions of government go out of control.
Government power is divided, not only between executive, judicial, and legislaturive organs, but also between state and federal institutions, precisely so that when one of them has gone off the track, you have another avenue to get help.
ping
Good post. Can I add that Christopher "Swishy" Shays is a TOOL?
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.