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 believe that is a valid point, also. However, the Constitutional arguments are larger than this one case.
it would be spectacular to hear Mark Levin, an ACTUAL legal constitutional scholar, speak to this issue. Mark, i am begging you.....
Terri's brain scans have been shown on TV—repeatedly— and Terri's brain scans are so different from a normal brain scan that even a novice can tell the changes.
Quote: '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."
And I believe that the hens are coming home to roost as a result. It is time to put everyone back in their place. One other note, at least when we disapprove of the President or Congress, we get the chance to remove them every so often via the democratic process.
Incapacitation is a red herring. Murder by starvation is not a spouse's right, a parent's right, anyone's right. It is intrinsically unjust.
Bingo!And it only took 43 posts to get it right. Surprising how so many in the media, the courts and the various legislative bodies hadn't gotten this in 15 years!
Google Terri Video, there are 5 videos. She is alive.
Who's STUPID idea was it to have mostly Congressional people of the Jewish faith get up and rant to have an innocent person STARVED to death!!!! That is what the NAZIS did to the Jewish people, and someone ILL-ADVISED the many Jewish people like, Barney Frank, Debbie Wasserman, Idiot Wexler, etc. be point people on this horrible way to die!!! INSANITY!! My Jewish husband was mortified.
What scared me was that (I thought) Greer could only "permit" Michael to have the tube removed. Then, hypothetically, Michael could have chosen whether or not to have the tube removed. Michael is supposedly in charge...not Greer.
However
Instead of "permitting" Michael to remove the tubeGreer ordered the tube removed
'Subordinate' may not have been the correct word, but the federal court system is "inferior" to Congress.
Verbatim out from the US Constitution: " Article III Section 1. The Judaical Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
I just saw Congress last night direct the federal court system to take the Shiavo case. I'd say that's being subordinate
If that were the case, we would have a totally different system of government where the power of the Executive could demand that the Legislative branch write laws according to their wishes under threats of penalty, or the Legislative branch could arrest Judges for not adjudicating according to their wishes, or the Judicial branch could raise charges against the members of the other two branches.
Nowhere did I mention the executive branch in my previous post. Still you paint a highly doubtful scenario.
One more note: The federal judiciary does rely on Congress and the executive branch for their funding. I think the judges like to get paid.
I agree with you completely on this point. And I'm not outraged. I'm interested in the Constitutional implications of what Congress did in this case. I'm interested in stimulating a reasoned discussion of those implications. Long after the Schiavo case is settled, the Constitutional questions raised by this case will still affect all our lives.
Thank you for making my case. Neither situation should burden the courts. Neither. Both are a collossal waste of time and money. This one has made the rounds. Unless, of course, the pass by the SCOTUS was unsatisfactory, and you're merely shopping for a sympathetic venue.
Mark was already here. Lookup his posts here.
The 5th Amendment guarantees due process rights from the Federal government.
The 14th guarantees due proces rights from the States.
Due Process rights are the same in both cases its just a matter of which government is covered by which clause.
A law degree comes in handy, now and then! ;-) Thanks!
Do you mean, "What's a hypothetical person?"
They ruled on it without asking obvious questions, like "what does the MRI look like?" The husband would not approve an MRI. If the courts are going to be asked to approve this kind of thing, and do a meaningful review, then they've got to have the evidence.
What happened here on the part of the court was willful blindness. The judge deliberately refrained from investigating whether the husband's position was correct, and simply approved the requested relief. The fact that a thousand courts were involved would not fix that problem, if none of them did their job.
Let me point out that the uproar over this is the direct result of the fact that the court did not do its job. The talking heads telling us that this is the way it should be done just prove how blind they are to reality. This case has been going on for 8 years. It's been affirmed twice on appeal. The state legislature has weighed in, the US Supreme Court has considered a petition for cert, the US Congress has spoken, and we still don't know whether this woman has normal brain activity because the idiot trial judge deferred to the husband's wishes, and did not order an MRI.
If we've got to go thru this kind of thing every time someone wants to euthanize their spouse, then euthanasia is not going to be a very common occurrence. And the liberals tell us that the legislature has no right to get involved, so I guess the courts are just going to have to deal with with the mess that they have created by giving the courts sole power to consider these cases.
thank you for coming to the thread to speak to this.
Ah, yes. Karen Ann Quinlan. Although I couldn't remember the name of the case, I referenced it in another response on this thread. As a lawyer, I hope you understand that my purpose in starting this thread was to spark discussion of the Constitutional implications of this case, not to take a side either way.
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.