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

[BedRock]

This really chaps my hide...

In "Roe v. Wade", Roe was allowed to go ahead and obtain an abortion even though it was still against Texas State law.

The Court stated reasoning for this as;

...her case could essentially take too long to hear, and by the time judgement was rendered, the baby would have already been born. And the wording used to describe the situation was

"capable of repetition, yet evading review"...

It would seem to me that in all the times that the Democrats have thrown around the arguments for a person's right to indivual rights of life, privacy, speech, etc. when it came to some liberal cause, they would surely remember this litte snippet out of the Abortion bible.

Why then, if this case is capable of repition, yet may evade review, due to the death of the patient by starvation; Why hasn't an honest Judge stepped up and said since this is still in the Courts, and the case hasn't been clearly decided as of yet...

Why isn't Mrs. Shiavo's rights protected until all legal remedies are exhausted??? Including her right to life...

No one is questioning the protection of the exhaustive processes afforded those on death row in our prison systems.

[jwalsh07]

Right Luis, we all know that having a paramour, two kids and a million bucks in the bank is not an appearance of conflict. I read all the decisions.

[Luis Gonzalez]

By the way dude, I can find laws in the books in the US that require people to enter a town carrying a lit lantern 100 yards ahead of a motor vehicle.

Now, should the State of Florida decide to enforce 798.01 against Michael Schiavo, it would be guilty of selective enforcement, and the case laughed out of Court...wouldn't it?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Keep it in Court until the outcome suits us?

Rather leftists of us, isn't it?

[jwalsh07]

I was just correcting your misstatements Luis. I don't want him arrested, I want him removed as guardian. The Court of Appeals has stated that he has an appearance of a conflcit of interest. That is grounds for removal. Not required mind you, but grounds for removal.

It is only common sense that a man with two women is conflicted. At least, it used to be.

[jwalsh07]

Keep it in Court until the outcome suits us?

Had MS been removed as guardian when he should have been, you and I would never have heard of Terri Schiavo, the courts would not have found a power to order the death of an innocent citizen in Florida, left wing folks would have more faith in Congress, right wing folks would have more faith in courts and you and I would be arguing over homosexual marriage.

Rather leftists of us, isn't it?

See above.

[gitmo]

It looks to me like the only thing this law does is give Terry's parents the right to sue in Federal Court to have the court review whether Terry has been denied her Constitutional rights. The Feds are precluded from ruling on the state laws.

This is extending the right to redress the government on Terry's behalf to her parents.

Does it take an act of Congress to be able to do this?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The Court of Appeals has stated that he has an appearance of a conflcit of interest. That is grounds for removal. Not required mind you, but grounds for removal."

Appearances are sufficient cause for enforcement?

That charge must see its day in Court as well.

This case didn't pop up yesterday, nor did Michael Schiavo's kids with another woman...why has this conflict charge not been addressed by the Florida Courts already?

[jwalsh07]

Well now Luis, thats the 60 million dollar question, isn't it?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Had MS been removed as guardian when he should have been"

Removed by whom, and by what power?

[jwalsh07]

By the power of Florida Law. You live in Florida. Search guardian, you'll find it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Not really, the answer is rather obvious.

It hasn't been because it isn't an issue. The only reason that it has even been brought up now, is that time is running out on Terri, and every possible venue, including those previously considered meaningless (as this quite possibly was) is being brought to light.

I know that in Florida, it is quite difficult for people to obtain a divorce from a mentally disabled person, the law was set in place to protect the State (and by default the taxpayers) from people divorcing the permanently disabled, and abandoning them to the care of the State.

You can't legally divorce a person who can't answer a summons.

[antiRepublicrat]

LOL, get real.

Okay, show me the Roe v. Wade cite.

[jwalsh07]

Dude, I was joking. Crack a smile, life is short.

[MamaLucci]

M Schiavo is hell bent for leather to have Terri's life
extinguished........but for the life of me, I cannot come
up with an acceptable reason WHY? Why can't he just
walk away? Does anyone really believe
that he and his mistress lay in bed at night and worry
about TERRI'S best interests? Common sense tells me that they
are more concerned about themselves and their children. IMHO, he has
forfeited the right to make legal decisions for Terri, MORALLY, if not legally.
I firmly believe that if Mr.Schiavo succeeds (and it looks as though he will)
in his morbid quest to rid himself, and the world,
of his first wife, some how, some way, he will live
to rue the day.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You were eager to provide the precedent for your last argument, why not now?

[jwalsh07]

Luis, you're arguing with yourself again. I never mentioned divorce. I said he should have been removed as guardian because he "may have a conflict of interest". I think that is self evident but I've had others tell me it isn't so you're disagreeing doesn't surprise me at all.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"May have" a conflict of interest holds no more legal water than "could be guilty or murder" does.

I looked, the Florida law does not provide for removal of a guardian based on unproven allegations of conflict of interest. It does provide for legal removal should the guardian be found guilty of not carrying out their legal obligations...in this case, Michael Schiavo's legal obligations under Florida law includes making this decision.

The law sucks...but it is the law.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The Court of Appeals has stated that he has an appearance of a conflict of interest. That is grounds for removal."

OK, substantiate that statement.

[jwalsh07]

744.474 Reasons for removal of guardian.--A guardian may be removed for any of the following reasons, and the removal shall be in addition to any other penalties prescribed by law:

(1) Fraud in obtaining her or his appointment.

(2) Failure to discharge her or his duties.

(3) Abuse of her or his powers.

(4) An incapacity or illness, including substance abuse, which renders the guardian incapable of discharging her or his duties.

(5) Failure to comply with any order of the court.

(6) Failure to return schedules of property sold or accounts of sales of property or to produce and exhibit the ward's assets when so required.

(7) The wasting, embezzlement, or other mismanagement of the ward's property.

(8) Failure to give bond or security for any purpose when required by the court or failure to file with the annual guardianship plan the evidence required by s. 744.351 that the sureties on her or his bond are alive and solvent.

(9) Conviction of a felony.

(10) Appointment of a receiver, trustee in bankruptcy, or liquidator for any corporate guardian.

(11) Development of a conflict of interest between the ward and the guardian.