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

[LauraleeBraswell]

Had Terri gone a killing spree, and then had her accident/event/collapse- We couldn't starve her to death. Unfortunately, only criminals have rights.

[Sam Cree]

"Finally, there is the question of what is the Highest Authority. Many, including our Founding Fathers, place that authority in something other than the Constitution."

A good point with which I agree. But evil men also cite God to justify their actions.

[the herald]

Murder by starvation is somehow more evil than life by food pipe? It's a terrible fate either way, but the first has dignity. More importantly, however, is that this is an insult to Federalism and small government and states rights and everything a good Conservative stands for.

[FlipWilson]

Quote: "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."

Ok, here is an implication. Congress shocked millions of Americans awake to discover that Congress does indeed have Constitutional power over the judiciary. Congress can pass a bill that extends the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts to just one case, if Congress so desires. This is such as shock because the Left has sold America on the myth that the Courts sit ABOVE the Executive and Congress. The Left loves this notion because it means appointed liberal dictators for life can enact an agenda that most of us would never ever vote for in a gazilliion years.

[Military family member]

"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. "

Isn't this the argument made in the "Federalist Papers?"

[LauraleeBraswell]

""The constant usage of ALL-CAPS is highly unnecessary and comes across as juvenile.""


DOES THIS COME ACROSS AS JUVENILE?

MAYBE, I WILL WRITE THIS WAY ALL THE TIME FROM NOW ON!

!!!!!!!!CAPS CAPS CAPSLOCK IS ON

[syriacus]

Let me point out that the uproar over this is the direct result of the fact that the court did not do its job.

Some judges in Florida seem a little "inept."

[katnip]

Yep, I'm glad Mark weighed in here. I feel much better now :)

[eastsider]

In New York City, it's against the law to starve a dog to death.

[Brilliant]

I don't think the courts should be involved in the business of euthanasia at all. And this case proves it. It was bungled in the most unbelievable manner, and there is no redress. The courts have given themselves a huge black eye with this one.

[Wolfstar]

You have a bestselling author and Constitutional scholar telling you it's in the Constitution.

Are you referring to the Mark Levin article? Excellent article.

[HitmanLV]

I understand completely and it's a great topic (especially since it is widely misunderstood on all sides of the issue). I know you are just posing the question (though I disagree with some of your follow-up thoughts).

I think the media has done a rotten job in explaining this, and I also think the dems against it (and remember, I think 47 dems voted with the GOP in a session where a lot of members were not present) have been terrible in their rhetoric, just confusing the issue even more.

And yep, Quinlan was a pretty big deal for quite a while. Sad story.

Keep on truckin, friend!

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

If what the left says is true about not using the courts to decide her life then the courts should likewise not be used to decide her death nor should they be used in matters such as abortion!!

[FlipWilson]

The SCOTUS made the "pass" because their jurisdiction is largely discretionary. Funny how they never find the discretion to pass up a good death penalty case. I just don't see the problem with extending this woman the same rights as a criminal. Why do you?

[syriacus]

Congress shocked millions of Americans awake to discover that Congress does indeed have Constitutional power over the judiciary.

Yes. Nice post.

[countrydummy]

Thanks! I am s stroke! I and "word" and I am and good! I am 44 years old!

Terri? Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I an RN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Terri? The Parents!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mike is a murders!

[xsmommy]

and he came even before i begged, which makes him all the more considerate ; )

[Wolfstar]

The job of the Courts is to interpret the law as written, and to the best of my knowledge Terri Schiavo will starve to death because unfair and inhuman as it is, the law stands on the side of her husband.

I agree with you on this point. I believe Congress should have taken the broader view. It should craft a law setting national policy in euthanasia cases, which is what the Schiavo case is at its core.

[the herald]

The SCOTUS considered and passed. You left that part out. How many times does this need to pass before a judge before you'll be satisfied? Or are you just shopping for the answer you wanted beforehand? If that's the case, then just be intellectually honest and say 'hey look, this is a situation where the laws of men do not preside'. At least I'd respect the point of view. As it stands, we have millions of otherwise-right-thinking Conservatives trying to make the case that this is a Conservative banner that we should carry. It is not. Not in any way.

[Alberta's Child]

The courts etc etc etc didn't respect his wishes when this first happened ten years, so he was supposed to remain in his own vegetative state until she passes naturally? If they had respected his rights from the very beginning his current situation wouldn't appear so unusual.

There was no way a court could "respect his wishes when this first happened," as his wishes have changed over time.

First, the husband filed a medical malpractice lawsuit related to the care of his wife very early on in this process. As part of the settlement of that suit, the court awarded a sum of money (I believe it was somewhere in the range of $1 million) to help pay for her care. Here's something you don't hear very much about that case: the award was based on testimony from medical professionals who estimated that Terri would live for an additional 41 years from that point.

OK, so now Michael has this 41-year trust fund in place, and he immediately begins the legal process to have Terri's feeding tube removed. In the meantime, he goes out and shacks up with another woman and has two kids out of wedlock. The basic point of the legal challenges brought about by Terri's family is that Michael Schiavo no longer has any standing to make any decisions about his wife's medical care.

If nothing else, Terri should be assigned a lawyer to represent her own interests separate from Michael's. The first course of action for this lawyer would be to file for divorce on Terri's behalf -- with Michael's decision to openly commit adultery constituting irrefutable grounds for divorce. Step #2 would be to find another person or parties to serve as the executor of her affairs, depending on the laws of the State of Florida.