Posted on 03/21/2005 11:31:10 AM PST by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888
Someone posed this to me the other day, and I dismissed it then as easily as I will now:
I agree that individuals have a duty to disobey immoral laws. For instance, in this case, if the doctor (or whomever) who was ordered to actually, physically, remove the tube from Terri's throat were to object on moral grounds, I wouldn't have a problem with that and I wouldn't expect him to be punished for disregarding the order.
However, when you are dealing with governments, that rationale no longer holds true, because governments, which draft and enforce the laws, aren't free to simply disregard the laws they don't like, because the laws are all we have to hold together society. Without law, there is no civilization. What is the point of having a constitution or laws if government is not bound? It is an exercise in fiction--nothing more than an illusion of security and civilization.
As I said on another thread, only God is perfect. We just have the law.
Your a brave person to post this viewpoint on this forum ;)
To some, the "Right to Life" transcends all other considerations - I do not agree with this. The Florida courts considered all the evidence and came to a conclusion. From what I have read, their consideration was thorough, and they reached a verdict they considered to be in accordance with the state laws and constitution. Even though I do not personally believe Terri should be allowed to die, I can't argue with the process that allowed the courts to come to this conclusion. I also believe that the evidence will be considered in the same way by the Federal courts and they will probably reach the same conclusion.
The actions of Congress in this case are an inexcusable breach of the separation of powers, and I can't help feeling there is a significant element of "grandstanding" involved.
"The only state right I see is the "right" to allow her husband to order the hospice to stop providing food and water to her. Is that the state right you're referring to?
If so, that is NOT a state right, because it violates her right to live."
Longtime lurker here. Just signed up because I happen to agree with Rep Boehlert, as well as several people on this thread, and wanted to respond. And as far as state's rights are concerned, plenty of states have laws that on these "right-to-die" issues and there has been very little in terms of outrage that I've seen. Texas has a law, The Futile Care Law. It was invoked just last week when Sun Hudson, a six-month-old boy with a fatal congenital disease, died after a Texas hospital, over his mother's objections, withdrew his feeding tube. The child was apparently certain to die, but was conscious. The hospital simply made the decision, and the Texas courts upheld that decision after the mother failed, during the 10-day window provided for by Texas law, to find another institution willing to take the child. Where was Congress last week? Are they now going to have to address each of these agonizing situations across the country??
There are thousands of unbearable tragedies, and unthinkable decisions that ordinary people have to make every day. Since myriad doctors and judges have reviewed the Schiavo case for seven years, and have consistently come up with the same conclusion, I have to honor their decisions and tell the Congress to butt out.
Flame away.
Oh, but individuals have inalienable rights which the feds are obliged to protect, along with their Constiutional rights.
For instance the "right to an abortion" is a perverse reading of the Constitution and should not be a federal matter. The "right to life" however is certainly a federal matter.
But if the people feel the power of impeachment is being abused, the next election is always less than 2 years away. If the people feel the power of the judiciary is being abused, what recourse is there? None whatsoever, except through their representatives, and the name of that recourse is impeachment.
What if the Florida courts are circumventing their own laws, crafted by the elected representatives of the people?
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
What law or laws in particular are you saying congress violated by sending this matter to a federal court?
However, when you are dealing with governments, that rationale no longer holds true, because governments, which draft and enforce the laws, aren't free to simply disregard the laws they don't like,
You do understand the Constitution says that the Congress was well within the law, don't you? What is it you don't understand about that?
Your response confirms you are in the "I believe Terri has cognitive ability" camp.
If the Florida courts believed this, they would not have ruled as they did.
As I stated, for those of you who believe Terri has cognitive ability, this thread would be a rehash of 200 other Terri threads.
I wanted comments on the justification of conservatives who now believe that Congress should trump SCOTUS, that Republicans are now rewriting law, etc. and acting like Democrats.
These are the issues I wanted to hear comments on, not the rehashed "Terri is not braind dead" arguement.
Fair enough. But then you'd get into a situation of legislators running for office on the platform of 'elect me and I'll go after Judge so-and-so'. It seems like this is a 'Merchant of Venice' situation where the law may be on the side of unpleasant consequences.
OMG!! IMO, that was absolutely out of line!!!
If they child was certain to die, why was it necessary to kill it? Why not let it happen naturally without suffering?
Regardless, this does not apply in Terri's case because TERRI IS NOT CERTAIN TO DIE! Please get your facts straight before commenting.
This thread has become the "poor us, those who disagree with us are mind-numbed Rushbots...oh, and by the way, let's be civil about this!" thread.
If one feels the duty of congress when watching a person who is NOT on life support be starved to death is to shrug, then I can only lump him/her in with the libertarian types who think the poor should be starved to death. And no, it has nothing to do with religious beliefs, so you can keep that one in your quiver.
The congress's duty seems to be to uphold the law when it is being invented on the spot. The law says that all one has to do to be starved to death in this situation is fill out a piece of paper. THAT is the compromise. If that's not done, it seems to be criminal of the congress to let a killing happen just because a state is doing it.
I suppose if a state court decided a parent could suffocate his child with a pillow, you'd be pissed off if DeLay and company dared suggest this should be looked at by a federal court, which protects ALL rights.
If my state gets to decide I should be starved to death, when I've left no legal document to that effect, that's news to me.
Oh really? What clause is that?
Excellent comment.
I agree with you completely.
Convicted murderers under a sentence of death have a right to appeal that sentence to federal court. Unfortunately, Terry Schiavo is innocent of any crime and her death sentence was handed down by a civil court judge, so she has no such right of appeal.
Doesn't anything about this sound wrong to you? A death sentence handed down to an unarguably innocent person doesn't bother you at all?
You'd need a majority, and given the lag time between elections, it would be extraordinarily difficult to sustain one in favor of impeaching a judge, without sufficient cause.
Judges have to be answerable to someone, sometime, or they will - as they have - decide to make law instead of performing their constitutionally ordained role of interpreting it.
LOL You gotta be supremely naive to believe M Schiavo's claim that Terri once mentioned in passing that she did not want to be kept alive by extraordinary measures. M Schiavo's hearsay is the foundation of this entire case. But you look at this ghoul and get conned by him. Did Bill Clinton also con you and exude credibility?
Schiavo has lucked out by getting death dealing judges on his case but hopefully the Federal judge will make more sane rulings. A family loves Terri and wants to care for her. Yet her ghoul of a husband cannot let go. Cannot let Terri go into the loving, caring arms of her parents and siblings. Something stinks here. No way is anything M Schiavo says to be taken at face value. He has hidden reasons why he wants Terri dead.
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.