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

[mrsmith]

They make a reasonable federal statutorial claim:

"Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act... ...Defendant's Hospice's and Schiavo's execution of Defendant Judge Greer's order to remove her feeding tube imposes a substantial burden on Terri's religious free exercise."

This law requires some federal rule for when food and water can be denied against a person's apparent religious beliefs. The say-so of the next of kin may be enough, or it may not.

[Brilliant]

Well, it looks like the post claiming that the tube was re-inserted has been deleted by the moderator. Still not clear what's going on.

It was an interesting exchange. Sorry I can't go on. I've gotta get going.

[the herald]

They don't comment if they choose not to hear a case.

[torchthemummy]

If Mumia Abu Jamal gets Federal review then Terri can to.

[eastsider]

Mercy is always a virtue, murder a vice:

[O]f all the virtues which relate to our neighbor, mercy is the greatest, even as its act surpasses all others, since it belongs to one who is higher and better to supply the defect of another, in so far as the latter is deficient.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIb, 30, no.4.

[Peach]

I'm glad to see these issues being discussed on this forum; it will be interesting indeed to see what the Court decides to do. Thanks for posting the thread, Wolfstar.

[Wolfstar]

You're welcome, as always, Peach.

[Chena]

"Man oh man- this is one complex case. I change my mind hour by hour as I read and learn more about the law(s). I am as worried for the Consitutuion as I am for Teri. The ONE thing I'm certain of- her husband is shameless."

Yes, this is a complex case. Changing your mind, hour by hour, as you read and learn more suggests that you are an open-minded person, who wants to base an opinion on facts, rather than emotions. We need more of that sort of commonsense approach around here. :)

[Bigh4u2]

"They don't comment if they choose not to hear a case."

I understand that.

I was just wondering what their reasons were for not hearing the case, if any, and in what form it was presented.

Was this an appeal of Judge Greers decision or the decision of the State Supreme court declaring 'Terri's Law' unconstitutional?

[Dave S]

A private bill is not unconstitutional per se. It would have to grant Terri's parents special privileges or treatment not available to other citizens. All the law does is allow them to file a case. I don't believe a federal court would find that a constitutional infirmity; for to find it as such is to deny them recourse to the courts of law and to deny them justice

I dont have the right to file suit under this law and no one else does. Therefore its constitutionallity is questionable. The reason they dont have recourse to the courts is they dont have standing just like you dont have standing in court to question your neighbors medical care.

[1L]

I don't have a problem with Congress tailoring a law to a single case where it appears that the judge does not have the best interest of the person in mind, when in fact, that's the judge's sole legal responsiblity.

If Congress wants to act in any or all of these cases, that's fine with me.

In my opinion, Jeb should have gone in there with the state police and informed everyone that the judge's order to remove the feeding tube would not be enforced. We've seen over the last 5 years what a circus of a legal system Florida has. They have to be stopped, and if it takes an act of Congress to do it, I'm all for it.

[izzatzo]

Well, if it's worth repeating, be sure you spell "exume" correctly-it should he "exhumed." I didn't realize I had left the "h" out until already posted. Forgive the breakdown, if you will.

[katnip]

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.

Good for you. I've already told my husband who has a terminal illness that if he wants to be starved and dehydrated to death when he can't talk anymore that he'd better put it in writing and make someone else his guardian.

[demlosers]

Read again...there are inferior courts because there is a Supreme Court.

Actually, inferior courts do not have to exist. They exist because Congress has established an inferior court system.

[Alberta's Child]

If the facts of the case are as I understand them, then there has been NO due process despite the years of litigation and appeals. At the very least, Terri Schiavo would have to be provided legal counsel to act on her behalf and look out for her interests aside from what her so-called "husband" would want for her.

[bigeasy_70118]

LOL - He makes a good point - just what DOES Roy Black have to say about this ? ( so far he's lost every procedure for Rush )

As we have known since Elian, Florida is a legal cesspool. Losing on procedural motions in a Florida state court, does not mean Rush's case is lost or that Mr. Black is an incompetent attorney.

[blinachka]

The argument is that due process of law has been achieved.

Yes, for MICHAEL Schiavo there has been due process but not for Terri Schiavo. The attorneys involved have been representing Terri's estranged husband and her parents. What attorneys have represented HER? Some will argue that as her legal guardian, it is the same as representing her, but there is much disagreement on that considering the many questions raised in this case over the years. There are questions of conflicts of interest for example.

[the herald]

your quote only addresses mercy. how does the good Saint feel about euthenasia? is it merciful?

[the herald]

Dunno. A pass to me is a pass.

[MACVSOG68]

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.

That appears to be more a distinction than a difference. Someone would have addressed the issue whether Congress in refusing to count the electoral votes, giving the election to Gore and thus violating Bush's 14th Amendment rights, or the USSC in deciding that standardless manual recounts constituted a 14th Amendment violation. Perhaps the USSC accepted jurisdiction following the Florida SC decision knowing that ultimately it would get the case. Let's face it...it was an equal protection issue, even if premature.