Posted on 03/21/2005 12:05:39 PM PST by Wolfstar
FED JUDGE ORDERS [SCHIAVO"S] FEEDING TUBE REPLACED
Well, there you go, herald. Your heros the judges have spoken.
So who SHOULD be in the business of euthenasia? Who?
I don't actually know if the Federalist Papers state that. Probably they do. It is my understanding of our Constitution, though. I surely hope it's the correct understanding, too, because if I'm wrong, we're at the mercy of our government by the intent of our founding fathers as well as through the excesses of our elected officials.
Or perhaps we instead curtail the rights of the criminals. Because that's where you and I agree.
The abject nihilism of the Third Reich didn't start with Hitler. The foundation for the Holocaust was already in place under the Wiemar Republic in the 1920s when Germany passed its first euthanasia laws.
Congress is responsible for making the laws, and can so at any time. Judges must obey the law Congress makes. Got it?
You left out Article III, Section 1. And in Section 2, you will note that the Federal courts may hear any case having a Constitutional argument. If you will read further the legislation passesd yesterday, the legislation requires the case have a basis in the Constitution. Presto. It's easy to find the power.
Not my heroes. Just wait five years for the DemocRats to turn this one on us. VICTORY FOR BIG GOVERNMENT!
"What's a hypothetical people?"
"Do you mean, "What's a hypothetical person?"
You tell me what you meant. You wrote it.
A bill of attainder has nothing to do with this case only because Congress didn't judge from the Capitol, instead simply playing with jurisdiction. It would have been a bill of attainder if Congress had said to resume feeding or give guardianship to her parents (who would resume feeding), because that would be depriving Michael Schiavo of his legal rights as her guardian.
How can you discuss our system of government, built on three separate but equal branches, and debate that one may be inferior to the other?
Read again...there are inferior courts because there is a Supreme Court.
Do you really think anyone should be?
There is a conservative principle here, and it is this: This case was decided on the basis of judicial activism. The judge found that she was PVS by judicially expanding the definition of PVS. He then judicially expanded the definition of extraordinary life sustaining measures to include food and water, which I think anyone would argue is a basic need, not extraordinary.
Having made those two factual conclusions, he then arrived at the result that he wanted to arrive at from the outset, namely that she should die.
Maybe it's time to allow this kind of euthanasia, but NOT by judicial fiat. And here, we've got the absolute worst situation, where the governmental body that is SUPPOSED to be making these decisions, i.e. the legislature, has been blocked out of the process altogether.
That's not conservatism.
What's really happening here is that the Democrats who have been thrown out of the legislature are trying to regain control over the government by use of the courts, which are populated by trial attorneys who are far more liberal than the general public. That's not democracy.
Isn't life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, mentioned somewhere in the constitution? In fact, isn't the safe guarding of those God given rights, pretty much the sum and total of what that document is all about? What I want some genius to show me, is some mention of a right to privacy in the Constitution. You know that secret place that only liberal activist judges know about, where they found the right to legally murder 45 million unborn Americans, maybe even a few visiting unborn foriegners. That secret Chamber in our Constitution where our founding fathers stashed all the invisible ammo that liberal judges coming centuries later would need to shoot that sacred document so full of alleged holes that every thing they themselves despised, could be driven through it and enslave their heirs in worse tyranny than that from whence they themselves had first fled and then in a bloody war repelled from these blessed shores.
Ok, but lets first start by curtailing the criminals rights rather than curtailing Terri's first.
When the judges are corrupt and morally bankrupt congress can have its say. Congress is the supreme authority--says so right in the constitution.
If euthanasia is going to be legal, it's got to be approved by the legislature. But it has not been--at least not in the case where the patient is not in a persistently vegetative state.
So, Congress can make laws that are unconstitutional and the Courts have no say so over them?
Why do we need Courts then?
Where do people go to protest miscarriages of justice by their legislature?
Logical you?
Hardly.
Not specific enough. There has to be particular violation of particular rights. You can't just go into federal court and claim that your due process rights were violated. You have to spell it out, make a case. I've read the Schindler's complaint, and it looks empty. They're grasping at straws.
...you should've just ignored Blzbba's CAPS comment though.
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.