Posted on 03/21/2005 12:05:39 PM PST by Wolfstar
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
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.