Posted on 03/21/2005 12:05:39 PM PST by Wolfstar
I'm not sure the 14th Amendment applies in this case, although I understand the arguments on these grounds. I could be wrong, of course, about whether or not it's applicable. As mentioned to another poster, I'll be interested to see how the courts rule should the case move up the federal court food chain. The lawyers for the parents are likely to use this clause in their arguments.
No it doesn't tell you where I stand at all, it's just the logical answer to your statement.
YOUR response however tells a whole lot about your willingness to judge based on very little information, and to react emotionally rather than to think in a logical manner.
I see that you joined just a few months ago, so I do have hope that should you continue to participate in FR, you will shed the remaining vestiges of liberalism which makes you all about "feeling" rather than about thinking.
?
The due process clause of the USC made applicable to the states via the 14th Amendment. Almost any first year law student who pays attention in class can advise Congress on that without going out on a limb too much. ;-)
Thank you for weighing in on this! Was hoping you would make your way over here and set people straight.
If a person is being murdered, he/she can not pay taxes or do anything else mentioned in the Constitution, making it moot!
That statement is simply incorrect. "Private relief" bills have been common since the 1st Congress and usually for much more trivial "individual legal" matters than life or death. They are usually under the media radar, but they happen all the time. Just because you haven't heard of them does not make them extra Constitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution that restricts Congress from doing this.
BTW. Even Scallia wouldn't have a problem with what Congress did. They are not overstepping their authority.
And you're right. No a single liberal who voted against this congressional act this morning has contended Congress lacked the CONSTITUTIONAL power to do so. They made other arguments about politics, policy, precedent, and so forth. Congress acted fully within its authority.
...to your comment on Sandy's brief but perfect assessment of the situation.
"" She hasn't gotten out of bed in 13 years. She can't eat or drink on her own. Her brain scans show no activity.""
1- Well, why hasn't she had therapy? OH YEAH, because that Husband with another common law wife and two children cut her off!
""She can't eat or drink on her own.""
Neither can a fetus- point is?
""Her brain scans show no activity.""
Not true. Have you seen the videos. Terri is FAR FAR FAR from a Vegitable.
It is where I see the potential Constitutional problem. The House also saw a problem on these grounds, which is why their original language was more broadly applicable. The Senate wanted the bill narrowly tailored. That's what the so-call Palm Sunday compromise was all about.
Congress did not act to give or deny Terri life. They did not involve themselves in this case in the sense you imply. Congress has not adjudicated this case. Congress has merely extended to the Federal Courts the jurisdiction to adjudicate this case. As someone stated above, this is not a bill of attainder. The power to establish the lower courts and, with limited exception, dictate their jurisdiction rests with Congress. If Congress wants to extend jurisdiction to the Federal Courts in this one case, it is fully within its right to do so.
The Bill of Rights (not in its entirety by the way) was extended, via the Fournteenth Amendment, to actions taken by the individual States. This Amendment was enacted after the Civil War to obviate the notion that "States Rights Rule the Day." In the instant case, we have a citizen of an individual state about to be deprived of life. She will now get to use the Federal Courts in satisfaction of her procedural and substantive due process rights. That is all Congress has done.
I do agree with you that Congress should have gone further and extended jurisdiction to all such cases, but surely you see that the current state of the judiciary makes Congress loathe to extend any more jurisdiction than it has to. While this case is important because of its individual facts, it is part of a larger and looming picture. There is a showdown coming between the Judicial Branch and the other two. What is really irking some is that Congress overruled a State Court. There is this notion, largely promoted by the Left, that Courts are the final word, that Courts sit atop the pyramid. That notion is nonsense. The judiciary is a co-equal branch of the government and needs to be made so again. This bill was directed towards a State Court. In the future, expect bills directed to the Federal Courts, for example, forbidding Judges from using foreign law as a basis of granting decisions.
No kidding!
I don't have a problem with that. Don't know if you've seen today's filing in the Florida court, but here it is. Mainly, the "case" is just a frivolous stalling tactic. Ultimately Michael will win.
"A better question would be why do lefties only kill innocents, and scream like banshees when a serial murder or such gets the death penalty?"
Yet another question is would anyone here be in support of keeping a violent felon alive, if this violent felon was beaten into a coma while on death row. I'm sure that noone here would care about removing that feeding tube, if all other legal aspects of the situation were identical.
Hi, Howlin. Thanks, but not so brave. For the most part, I ignore the hotheads and try to respond to those with reasonable arguments/statements. I have to leave the thread for the afternoon, though, so will lose track of it unforunately.
Oh, pardon me; I'm a little slow today......trying to find somewhere to get a BRAND NEW $$$$ camera that I dropped yesterday fixed. I'm ill!
Not at all. The rubber has hit the road and this instance just shows exactly how far the Republican party has moved from its election stance of limited government and its actual in office stance of unconstitutional actions. And also what types of 'conservatives' the Republican party has actually attracted as it has continued this stance
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.