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 don't think that it is an euthanasia case either. In an euthanasia case, there is no question as to the wishes of the person being killed.
This is murder by neglect under the power of law.
Michael Schiavo has the law on his side, and his is going to neglect his wife until she dies as a result of it.
Terry Schiavo may have certainly wished not to be maintained alive by artificial means, but I don't believe that she would have opted to be slowly starved to death.
I already have a decade-old agreement with one of my parents to refuse them care in this sort of situation. I intend to honor it. This is not a decision for everyone, but I intend to honor. It is the business of no one but my family primarily and our religious leaders secondarily.
Seems that's what the Schindler's have been doing for the past 15 years.
How can the Dems turn it around on us when they voted for it? It's their judge--a Clinton appointee--who did it. It just proves what I've been saying all along, i.e. the courts are not capable of handling these cases without guidance by the legislature, so YES, the legislature SHOULD be involved, and I predict, ultimately WILL be involved.
If the courts are the only governmental body that has juridiction over this, then this is what you can expect in the future. How anyone could draw the conclusion that the Constitution prohibits the legislature from legislating in this area, I don't know. Where does it say that?
I'm glad you pointed out Marbury vs. Madison set precedence, which clearly, is not in the US Constitution. For over two hundred years, congresses and presidents have acquiesced to the Supreme Court to decide what's Constitutional because of political expediency.
I agree with you that there is no right to privacy. Don't know how it was dreamed up, though I can think of justifications for such a right. IMO, the point that should be made is that there is no power of government to invade it.
I meant that liberals like to chant about the most extreme situations, no matter how remotely possible. ("Situations," that is, that are of interest to them).
Your argument is compelling, but factually inadequate. Why did the SCOTUS originally pass on this one? This case has gotten much more than its fair share of attention from liberal AND conservative justices.
It should set limitations on the power of the trustees, and have provisions for cruel and unusual deprivation of care.
Article XIV.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
She will die of dehydration before starving to death. Even so, this is the aspect of the case that troubles me the most. We don't treat condemned murderers this way, or our beloved family pets.
As for whether or not this is euthanasia, it most certainly is precisely that. Euthanasia has nothing to do with the wishes of the person being killed. It is defined by Mirriam-Webster simply as:
The act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.
The husband's claims are based on mercy for his wife and what he says is compliance with her wishes. The courts have ruled in his favor on that basis. This IS euthanasia, even if we don't want to face the truth of the matter.
"Why did the SCOTUS originally pass on this one? "
I'm not doubting your word, but, is there somewhere I could read about the SCOTUS decision?
Thanks.
14th amendment.
The Supreme Court doesn't always do the right thing, and it doesn't have the time to consider every case. What was the issue that the Court was asked to consider? If I'm not mistaken, it was whether the Florida statute that was thrown out by the Florida Supreme Court has unconstitutional under the Florida Constitution. Obviously, that is an issue that the US Supreme Court is not going to consider.
The question of whether this woman's due process rights under the federal constitution were violated is an issue that the federal courts can and should consider.
Does anyone know what the results were from the vote last night? When I finally fell asleep, the Democrats were split 32 to 40'something.
Yes, I guess that it is.
I've always thought euthanasia as being a pre-determined course of action, clearly set in place by the subject...I guess that lacking that piece of paper, Terri's legal guardian gets to kill her and call it euthanasia.
I'm only beginning to learn what the Constitution really says. I still have years of mis-education to overcome.
You misunderstand, or perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The due process clause says that a person may not be denied life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
They are trying to end her life. If you want specificity, that's the first thing the due process mentions. 'LIFE, liberty, or property.'
As for actually making the case, and matters of winning or losing, that will be determined by the court.
All I was discussing is the jurisdictional issue, not a decision one way or the other on the merits of the case. This whole thread is about jurisdiction - maybe if you had been attentive to the specifics of this thread, you would have understood that. You didn't - that speaks volumes for your legal analytical skills (HINT: It's not flattering.)
A Federal Court can reasonably decide either way, I don't dispute that. But the right of Congress to give jurisdiction in this case to a Federal court, based on the Constitutional provision I cited, isn't controversial at all.
You put the cart before the horse - we're discussing the jurisdiction, you're discussing making the case. Talk about a problem with specifics... ;-)
Or instead, let's not give criminals or any other ridiculous group precedent by EXTENDING this any further. Just end it now.
The argument is that due process of law has been achieved.
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.