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.
Remember the Boston Tea Party?
Well, forget it. This isn't about tea and it's not about saving the snail darter.
It's not a decision for everyone. I would not burden my wife with making that decision either.
My prayers for you and your husband.
There is no winner here. A woman is either going to die or she will live in misery. Both are terribly terribly tragic. And in my opinion, no one's business but the woman and the man she was married to at the time of the stroke. But others disagree and that is their right.
I disagree this time Luis. That so called due proccess, has left too many questions just begging for answers.
There is so much at stake here- it's very difficult seeing through our feelings of outrage at Teri's treatment by her husband -to the vital constitutional questions.
I don't blame anyone for whatever they're feeling.
And there I'll disagree with you. Terri will die due to a deliberate starvation and dehydration, not an illness. I don't believe my husband has that authority over me or me him.
I doubt that RLUIPA is even Constitutional. The previous version of that law already got shot down by the Supremes, and the current version is before the Court right now. It's just not a good statute for the Schindler's to be hanging their hopes on, if you ask me.
The is just a jurisdictional issue. Sandy didn't 'get' that.
If Congress had "refused to count the electoral votes," (actually, the term should be: "if Florida was incapable of meeting the requirements to certify their electoral votes on time,") then Gore would not have won the election. He would have had more electoral votes than Bush, but he still would not have had the 270 he needed to win the election. The U.S. Constitution clearly specifies the legal procedure to elect the President when this happens (through a special vote in Congress), and there was no way in hell Gore would have won under any circumstances.
Bush v. Gore was nothing more than an idiotic Supreme Court decision that was aimed at a semi-literate voting public that is so ignorant about the U.S. Constitution that it needs a hallowed body like a court or king to render decisions for it.
Indeed it would. And that would not be a "Bad Thing". If the federal courts reject the law on that basis, and Terri dies, she will not have died in vain if those floodgates are opened and all the unconstitutional laws are overturned. But you're right, it's not going to happen.
It's a very rare occurrence when the courts overturn a law on the basis of Congress not having the power to pass such a law. The first Gun Free School Zones law comes to mind, but all Congress did was sprinkle some more "Interstate Commerce" pixie dust on the law and pass it again. AFAIK, the second law has not been challenged and certainly it's not been overturned.
Similarly, the 5th isn't describing a federal government Right, but an individual Right.
Or am I misunderstanding your point?
"There is so much at stake here- it's very difficult seeing through our feelings of outrage at Teri's treatment by her husband -to the vital constitutional questions."
"I don't blame anyone for whatever they're feeling."
I understand the conflicting opinions and emotions on this subject as well. Wolfstar has posted a very important thread here and I, for one, have learned a few things I didn't know before. Well, maybe I knew them "once upon a time"....maybe....LOL
I agree with that, as I stated earlier. "maybe if you had been attentive to the specifics of this thread, you would have understood that." ;-)
Then why did you post about specificity and the merits of the case when the issue we are discussing is jurisdiction?
I pretty much only addressed the jurisdictional issue here - that made your post incongruent and out-of-place, to me anyway.
You know best, I suppose (actually, I don't really suppose that)~
A sad case. It's disgusts me that this judge doesn't order her tube back in until the appeals are over, even though I don't think she'll win.
When I'm online, I have a strong tendency to spell words the way they sound. I tell myself that's because I'm involved in a "conversation," and I'm sort of "hearing" what I am writing.
Of course, I've also made many online typos that are in no way related to this handy excuse of mine. :-)
Has that been decided? Wouldn't surprise me, but I hope not. It's a tough case all around. Really, I just like trying to follow the legal stuff and hope that the tube can get reinserted for now because otherwise the case becomes moot. I'm more interested in what the 11th Circuit (and possibly the Supreme Court) will have to say rather than who ultimately wins or loses.
I don't like what happened to a relative of mine in state court. They won't tell me if they agree, but on their behalf, I will ask congress to federalize my case individually on a special basis usurping state rights. That is the precedent being set here.
In its Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, decision the U.S. Supreme Court addressed only states' authority in the refusal of medical treatment (the feeding tube).
... The Court was careful to qualify and limit its support of the Missouri Supreme Court's decision.
As opposed to the latter's nearly outright denial of an individual's right to refuse medical treatment, the U.S. Supreme Court's majority opinion asserted that a competent person has a "constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment."
And although the Court upheld Missouri's requirement that there be "clear and convincing evidence" of an incompetent patient's previously expressed wishes before treatment can be discontinued, it did not make such evidence mandatory for states with different law.
Finally, in a separate concurring opinion Justice Sandra Day O'Connor asserted that a patient-designated proxy could be an acceptable "source of evidence" of a patient's intent. If the proxy does in fact have some constitutional status, this status should motivate state courts and legislatures to recognize the practice.
PMID: 10107437 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
This is a case to authorize the termination of life-prolonging procedures under
chapter 765, Florida Statutes (1997), and under the constitutional guidelines
enunciated in In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So.2d 4 (Fla.1990).
...the Schindlers argue that the testimony, which was conflicting, was
insufficient to support the trial court's decision by clear and convincing evidence.
We have reviewed that testimony and conclude that the trial court had sufficient
evidence to make this decision. The clear and convincing standard of proof, while
very high, permits a decision in the face of inconsistent or conflicting evidence.
...
Her statements to her friends and family about the dying process were few
and they were oral. Nevertheless, those statements, along with other evidence
about Theresa, gave the trial court a sufficient basis to make this decision for
her.
...
After due consideration, we
conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this
question as he did.
there may be occasions when an inheritance could be a reason to question a surrogate's ability to make an objective decision. In this case, however, Michael Schiavo has not been allowed to make a decision to disconnect life-support. The Schindlers have not been allowed to make a decision to maintain life-support. Each party in this case, absent their disagreement, might have been a suitable surrogate decision-maker for Theresa. Because Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers could not agree on the proper decision and the inheritance issue created the appearance of conflict, Michael Schiavo, as the guardian of Theresa, invoked the trial court's jurisdiction to allow the trial court to serve as the surrogate decision-maker.There's more about the choice Michael made and how "In this context, the trial court essentially serves as the ward's guardian."
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.