U.S. Constitution & Congress: Where’s their power to get involved in Schiavo case?

U.S. Constitution via House of Representatives website ^ | 3/21/05

[Wolfstar]

United States Constitution

Article I. Section. 8.

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.

[the herald]

That's why we have courts, and that's why umpteen have ALREADY RULED ON THIS ISSUE. How many judges do you need before you'll be satisfied? This is a circus.

[izzatzo]

You conveniently overlooked Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution which states: "The juducial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

The Congress, ideally, should express the "will of the people"; to give this case to the courts to decide is absurd since recent history indicates the courts do not abide by the will of the people.

You have a decidedly leftist point of view in this matter by indicating that you side with the courts' deciding this issue.

With reference to my first paragraph, if the Congress can establish the inferior courts, it sure as hell can inject itself into certain issues such as this. This issue is bigger than Terri Schiavo, it's an issue regarding whether or not the rule of the people will be exumed from the morass of the liberal judges'/courts' deciding and ruling on every societal issue.

[syriacus]

High court: Juvenile death penalty unconstitutional


Tuesday, March 1, 2005


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes, ending a practice used in 19 states.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/01/scotus.death.penalty.ap/

[nightdriver]

"Congress and the federal courts should stay out of it."

They might have if Greer hadn't been in contempt of Congress.

[Wolfstar]

Hi, Peach. I'm pleased that a number of people understand that this thread is about the Constitutional issues, and not about the merits of the Schiavo case either way. Of course, others are so caught up in their emotional investment in the case that they can't even be pleasant. But what the heck. The thread is educational for those who want to open their minds. Most of the arguments we're discussing here will be argued in federal court if the case proceeds further.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I don't know whether this legislation is constitutional or not, but I anticipate the federal courts will decide that issue fairly quickly."

Unfortunately, people want what they want.

If the legislation is truly unconstitutional, and the Courts find it to be so, the people on Terri's side will call it a gross miscarriage of Justice by the Courts.

[FlipWilson]

Quote: "Sometimes the lack of education about our system of government shocks me. You could not be more wrong. The United States Constitution is a compact between the states and the federal government they created. The Constitution spells out the type of federal government, the method of electing its officers, its powers, and its relationship to the states, and through the states, to the people."

Interesting rationale, the same one used by the Southern States to justify the Federal Government having no business in prohibiting or regulating slavery. A war was fought over that very issue resulting in the Fourteenth Amendment, which is now PART of the Constitution.

To be sure, there is a fine line to walk between the Federal Government emasulating the States and the States willy nilly abrogating Federal mandates. But when it comes to the Bill of Rights, I will side with the Federal Government everytime.

[Sam Cree]

"There is nothing in the Constitution that restricts Congress from doing this."

I believe it works the other way; I think the Constitution authorizes Congress to do certain things as opposed to restricting them from what they can't do. In other words, if the authorization isn't spelled out in the Constitution, Congress can't do it. They cannot just do anything they think of merely because those things aren't restricted.

Otherwise, their power would be pretty much unlimited.

OTOH, the situation is the opposite for us citizens, we can do anything that is not restricted. Because, again, if we could only do whatever Congress, in it's wisdom, dreamed up to put on a list of permitted actions by citizens, our freedom would be damned restricted.

Instead, government power is pretty damned restricted. Or is supposed to be.

However, it does look to me as if the 14th would allow Congress to become involved in this case by taking the position that Terri has not received due process.

[Blzbba]

"make this story GO AWAY!!!!"


Amen, brother. The amount of time and money spent on this case while other important issues are completely ignored is astounding.

I wish they'd just let the parents take her home and pay for her care themselves. End of story.

[Dog Gone]

It's good to have these discussions about the constitutionality of various actions. However, in my experience, Congress routinely violates the constitution, the courts do whatever the hell they want, and Presidents even lie under oath and get naked with fat chicks.

The rules aren't followed much anymore.

[Modernman]

That's a very fine distinction. He needed the court to authorize it. If not, then why even involve the court at all?

I'm not totally familiar with the background, but didn't his in-laws sue to prevent him from removing the feeding tube?

[Military family member]

That anaology doesn't hold true, as each state has the right to determine the legality of common-law marriages. They are not recognized in every state.

[syriacus]

This issue is bigger than Terri Schiavo, it's an issue regarding whether or not the rule of the people will be exumed from the morass of the liberal judges'/courts' deciding and ruling on every societal issue.

Bears repeating.

[HitmanLV]

Cruel and unusual punishment applies only to criminal cases. As for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that's comes from the Declaration of Independence, not from the controlling law of our land, the United States Constitution.

I hate to break the news to you, but this post holds no water at all.

There is a broad prohibition of 'cruel and unusual punishment.' Constitutionally speaking, that's not limited to criminal cases at all.

And the right to 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness' is germane to this issue - it is the root of the USC's 'due process' clause. That is, the Federal government will not deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law.

This was applied to the states by the 14th Amendment.

Now the case has enjoyed some time in the courts, but in the judgment of our legislators they want to preserve her Federal due process rights, before she loses her life.

That's legit.

[Wolfstar]

I change my mind hour by hour as I read and learn more about the law(s).

At least you're keeping an open mind. For you and others with open minds, let me once again say that I'm in favor of reinserting the feeding tube. The point of this thread is not to argue the merits of the Schiavo case, per se, but to examine the Constitutional questions.

Long after this case is over, we all will have to live with the consequences of congressional and court decisions. That being the case, we should at least make an attempt to understand the Constitutional basis for those decisions.

[FlipWilson]

So let me get this straight. A brutal murderer on death row can have umpteen million appeals (even if he EXPRESSLY requests to end the appeals and die), but Terri should be limited?

[Dog Gone]

Puzzling, isn't it?

[Alberta's Child]

Not sure why. The 14th Amendment seems to apply to both cases.

The difference is that in Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Constitution clearly gives Congress the authority to lay the ground rules for Presidential elections. When the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling calling for a statewide recount that extended beyond the original certification date for the Electoral College, the U.S. Supreme Court had no business getting involved. The original certification date should have stood, and if Florida couldn't get its act together to meet that deadline (for whatever reason) then their electoral votes simply would not have been counted.

[Smartaleck]

"Liberal usually chant about hypothetical people, not real people."

What's a hypothetical people?