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

[Wolfstar]

United States Constitution

Article I. Section. 8.

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.

[El Gato]

We don't recognize polygamy in this country. And the question traditionalists should ask, like me, is how this purported husband was able to remain as the guardian in this case. Can anyone explain that? Very bizarre. So, don't tell us about the husband-wife relationship when Michael Schiavo moved on with another woman without the benefit of a divorce.

Does anyone know if her parents, or anyone else, attempted to get a lawyere appointed to represent her interests? One who could have filed for divorce on the grounds of adultery. That sort of thing is done all the time for children who's parents may not be acting in the best interests of the child.

[Dog Gone]

Yes, the Cruzan case is not helpful to the Schindler's at all. Their attorneys will attempt to discount it by pointing to the bill passed by Congress last night.

That may or may not be completely successful, given the previous opinion of this court.

I also don't know why the Schindler's keep pursuing the theory that Terri's religious liberties are being violated. That's just such a weak argument legally. I think it's counterproductive to pursue it at this point.

[Ragnorak]

I think you got it, although the word "restriction" instead of "right" would probably be more accurate when it comes to State and Federal.

Originally, the Federal Constitution only applied to the Federal government. So even though the Bill of Rights said you have freedom of the press, there was nothing in the Federal Constitution preventing New York State from shutting down a newspaper-- although New York had its own Constitution that forbid the State government from doing this.

The 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights onto the several States. This means that post-14th Amendment New York is prevented by the Federal Constitution from interfering with a free press and that if you believe that they have you can file suit in Federal Court.

As a result if you believe the Federal government has violated your due process rights you sue under the 5th Amendment, and if a State government violates your due process rights you sue under the 14th.

This also creates a situation where Federal due process becomes the minimum standard. A State can grant greater due process rights than the Federal government but never fewer. Same for 4th Amendment searches, and Federal interpretations of the Establishment Clause, etc. (Not trying to say this is good or bad, just the way it currently is.)

[savedbygrace]

Yeah, as I was typing that, at one or two points in time, I included the concept that these are restrictions on the government.

OK, fine.

[El Gato]

What I want some genius to show me, is some mention of a right to privacy in the Constitution.

It's not an absolute right, but certain aspects one's privacy are protected by the fourth amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Of course the right is very limited. A reasonable search is permitted, but requires a warrant under most circumstances. IMHO, a search with a warrant is not reasonable if the warrant is served in an unreasonable manner, or if the warrant does not meet the requirement to be particular (that is specific to the individual case, blanket warrants are not allowed). A "defective" warrant that fails to indicate probable cause would also result in an unreasonable search.

[Busywhiskers]

I think a better question is where is the power of Michael Schiavo and the State of Florida to execute Terri derived from?

[Ragnorak]

The 14th Amendment is arguably the most significant turning point in our history. If this stuff really interests you, definitely read up on it. It's fascinating stuff and don't let a couple Latin phrases intimidate you. Most legal decisions are in plain English.

Here's where the 14th Amendment started out:

In Davidson v. New Orleans (1878) Justice Samuel commented “It is not a little remarkable, that while this provision has been in the Constitution of the United States, as a restraint upon the authority of the Federal government, for nearly a century, … this special limitation upon its powers has rarely been invoked ... but while it has been a part of the Constitution, as a restraint upon the power of the States, only a very few years, the docket of this court is crowded with cases... There is here abundant evidence that there exists some strange misconception of the scope of this provision as found in the fourteenth amendment.” This decision held, “That whenever by the laws of a State...and those laws provide for a mode of confirming or contesting the charge thus imposed, in the ordinary courts of justice, with such notice to the person, or such proceeding ... as is appropriate to the nature of the case, the judgment in such proceedings cannot be said to deprive ... without due process of law, however obnoxious it may be to other objections.“ Yet he went on to say, “There is wisdom, we think, in the ascertaining of the intent and application of such an important phrase in the Federal Constitution, by the gradual process of judicial inclusion and exclusion, as the cases presented for decision shall require, with the reasoning on which such decisions may be founded.”

[eastsider]

Aquinas does not explicitly address euthanasia in the Summa, although one can only conclude from his remarks about murder and mercy that euthanasia is a vice, not a virtue.

At IIb, 30, 3 ("Whether mercy is a virtue?"), Aquinas, quoting Augustine, states the following:

I answer that, Mercy signifies grief for another's distress. Now this grief may denote, in one way, a movement of the sensitive appetite, in which case mercy is not a virtue but a passion; whereas, in another way, it may denote a movement of the intellective appetite, in as much as one person's evil is displeasing to another. This movement may be ruled in accordance with reason, and in accordance with this movement regulated by reason, the movement of the lower appetite may be regulated. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5) that "this movement of the mind" (viz. mercy) "obeys the reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded, whether we give to the needy or forgive the repentant." And since it is essential to human virtue that the movements of the soul should be regulated by reason, as was shown above (I-II, 59, A4,5), it follows that mercy is a virtue.

(Emphasis added). Later, in the section covering the virtue of justice and the opposing vice of murder (IIb, 64, 6), Aquinas concludes that "Therefore it is in no way lawful to slay the innocent."

Thus, the injustice of killing an innocent man is contrary to true mercy, which reason dictates must safeguard justice.

[LibertarianInExile]

Good post bump.

[Wolfstar]

How about the part where it says: "The right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness etc."?

That language is from the Declaration of Independence, not the United States Constitution. The Declaration was written in 1776, before there was a United States. As beautiful and important as it is, the Declaration is not the founding law of these United States. The Constitution is, and it was written 11 years after the Declaration.

[Wolfstar]

Wolfstar has posted a very important thread here and I, for one, have learned a few things I didn't know before.

Thanks. It pleases me a great deal to know that at least one person's knowledge has been increased by this thread. That was my purpose in starting it.

[Wolfstar]

That is the precedent being set here.

Exactly. Judge Andrew Napolitano of FOX News said that although members of Congress do get what's known as "private" legislation inserted into bills from time to time to address a particular constituent need, what Congress did on the Schiavo case has never been done before in American history.

No matter what our individual opinions on the Schiavo case may be, we need to set emotions aside and look at the larger impact of the precedent Congress just set.

[the herald]

And the other place we will differ is in that I would actively give someone that power, lest I be forced to live in that situation. Death seems to me to be a far less tragic fate. But again, this is me.

[Wolfstar]

Thanks for all of the excellent information, Trinity_Tx. I know many people let their emotions rule their intellect, but the information you provided will be of interest to those who do want to think rather than just feel.

[Wolfstar]

I think a better question is where is the power of Michael Schiavo and the State of Florida to execute Terri derived from?

This thread is intended to examine the U.S. Constitutional questions raised by what Congress did. It's fair to examine what the questions related to the State of Florida, but that would belong on a separate thread.

[Wolfstar]

Good post bump.

Thanks.

[Chena]

Thank you for this information. :)

[Former Military Chick]

I agree on your brave bump to the poster.

Earlier today something came to mind, why have the doctors on either side come to the aid of their patient?

I keep hearing the numbers of folks who have reviewed video and even more who have read her medical chart but where are they NOW? Perhaps I am so on this and you know the answer!!

[sefarkas]

The United States Constitution does not authorize Congress to involve itself in an individual legal matter.

The tax laws are full of that stuff.

[xzins]

It is a process.

From the district, they can appeal to the circuit, and from there to the Scotus, if I remember correctly. I think it's just those 3 layers.