Posted on 03/21/2005 12:05:39 PM PST by Wolfstar
According to Mark Levin, that changed way back in 1803
Well, there needs to be re-balancing of the system. The Constitution is fine. The problem is the way we have operated. Judicial review isn't in the Constitution. It came about in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison. Given that, the Supreme Court and the other courts should be very careful about how they exercise their power. They are not anymore. In fact, I cannot think of any area of life that the court doesn't intervene in or that the court doesn't think it can intervene in.I can tell you that the Framers could never have imagined a court this powerful, and never would have authorized the court to do this sort of thing. The Constitution creates a silhouette when it comes to the judiciary. It is up to Congress to paint the picture. And the idea that this silhouette turns out to be more powerful than the other two branches in almost every respect is absurd.
That's a very fine distinction. He needed the court to authorize it. If not, then why even involve the court at all?
You are quite right. And Congress doesn't exist simply to implement federal court orders and raise taxes and redistribute wealth. This is the mindset that we've allowed to set in, and we must resist it. We are not a government by judiciary, but we're getting there. The framers never supported such power for this unelected branch. This history of our founding and the framers' efforts are crystal clear on this.
Whatever make you comfortable.
""The case has no business before a federal judge. Let's be honest here, it's a thinly veiled attempt to overrule a Florida court.""
Says who?
Uhh, when they say feeding tube do they mean feeding tubes in general, or just the hospital's feeding tube. because if it is just the hospital's why don't her parents just get their own and feed her, who's to say she doesn't desire that?
Nothing in the Constitution forbids this. In fact Congress passes laws all the time that pertain to one individual or one company
""Who is going to rule in favor of Michael Schiavo very soon.""
'It is better to err on the side of life' so said President Bush.
"We have illegal left wing radical courts and a reaction to this in Congress and the House. "
You know this whole "activist judge" thing is a little old.
The judiciary is doing exactly what it was intended to do, interpret law and review the constitutionality of existing laws.
The very nature of the judicial branch, and the reason we appoint judges for life, is to maintain separateness between the judiciary and the “the people’s will”. Because separateness is the judicial branch’s best defense at being carried away on a wave of temporary national lunacy and that vital separation is what allows the judicial branch to act as a check on the legislature.
The judicial branch is not, has never been, nor should it ever be structured to represent the “people’s will”. That is what the legislative branch is for.
If you don't like the law, vote for a legislator that changes the law. This attack on one of the THREE branches of govenment is getting REALLY dangerous. Some times you like them somtimes you don't, it's still the best system every created.
Liberal usually chant about hypothetical people, not real people.
Your post is a perfect example of why an examination of the Constitution is so important. Education. The clause you highlighted has nothing whatsoever to do with individuals, but with the states.
Excellent point. Let's invade their privacy by insisting she get an MRI, and when it shows activity, we have proven that she wants to live for 30 more years in this miserable state. It will be definitive proof and we can all go back to minding our own business.
Of course. Everyone knows that spouses in this country have been always had the right to starve one another to death ...
The Interstate Commerce Clause? They use it for everything else.
I said virtually nonfunctional. If the only thing you can do on your own is breathe, you are virtually nonfunctional. Would you choose to live in Terri's condition for 15 years?
I didn't say anything about a "vegitable". It has been said, however, that Terri has gone from a family vegetable to a state vegetable to a national vegetable - which just goes to show what an unfortunate circus this whole process has become.
Why don't we just let the husband decide this without the judge? Under your utopia, the judge does nothing anyway but rubber stamp the husband's decision.
I would support congress, the supreme court, the President, the BATF, or any other entitity that could just make this story GO AWAY!!!!
I don't think Congress should have gotten involved in a state matter, which is the same reason the US Supremes were refusing to hear the appeals in this case.
But this situation has become a national story and seems to have its own momentum, so I'm more than casually interested in how it gets ultimately resolved.
"Small Gov't means small Gov't. not just when convenient to the right."
To real conservatives, yes - this is what it means. Unfortunately, there appear to be a large number of Federalists amongst us, now that the (R)s are in power. Amazingly, many of them hollered at Clintax's federal excesses for 8 long years.
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.