Posted on 03/21/2005 12:05:39 PM PST by Wolfstar
You be the judge. Here are the facts.
During the malpractice trial Michael Schiavo never mentioned Terri's supposed informed consent to remove "life support". The jury awarded Terri Schiavo about a million bucks for her care for the duration of her natural life. Do you think a jury would have coughed up all that dough if Mike had told them Terri wasn't gonna be around touse it?
Fast forward some years later. Money arrives in the bank, Mikey's got himself a new girl a kid and another on the way. Suddenly, he puts a DNR sign on her door, halts all rehab, refuses treatment for his wifes kidney infection and , lo and behold, he remembers that Terri once said to him, "Gee I wouldn't want to live like that."
You seeing a conflict yet?
Why didn't you tell me that before I started?:-}
Few people realize that Congress has the ability to simply abolish certain courts, re-fashion the judicial system and, in essense, "inferior" courts serve at Congresses pleasure.
I have never understood why Congress hasnt really exercized this power (except for changes in circuit courts, appointing bankruptcy and family courts, etc.) I'm glad that they haven't but it is within their power.
Problems arise with ex post facto laws here but I really think it's time we got away from the Constitutional quagmire when the real issue is the fact that NOTHING in the Constitution protects a bigamist and adulterer from having Guardianship removed when it can be proved his actions are not only nefarious but not in the best interests of his charge.
You dont need a freaking judge or Constitutional amendment to get a court to step in and stop a murder. If they WONT do it, Congress under Article III should perhaps revoke the entire district court system since, after the antics of the 1st and 9th circuits, it is clear these courts act have a great propensity to act as rogues.
That's easy. The court should consider a perfectly legitimate petition on behalf of Terri Schiavo for a divorce from her so-called "husband."
You can't legally execute one, either.
Well, except in this case, it seems.
Come on...the case has been in Florida's courts for fifteen years. You don't think if that were feasible, it would have already been done?
The Court can't consider a thin g that's not filed by anyone.
Her legal guardian is (supposedly) carrying out her wishes, Florida law allows him to do so.
It's been done, and done again.
You can't prove that Terri DIDN'T say that to her husband.
""How about you cite the section of the Consitution that gives Congress authority over state courts instead of continuously dodging the question?
Of course you can't because no such section exists.""
Read the first 50 posts. I'm not going to repeat myself. There were arguements going back and forth the other day in Congress and not one of them was whether or not this is constitutional.
Yup, tough to prove a negative. But more to the point MS can't "prove" that she did so we are left with hearsay testimony condemning a woman to death by dehydration. What a country.
Not good enough. You didn't say anything worth repeating and you're still dodging the question. Your tagline says conservative before Republican. Prove it.
This may sound callous, but Terri Schiavo's one life is nothing in light of the hundreds of thousands who have died protecting the Constitution. For the idiots in Congress to run roughshod over the very principles for which those people gave up their lives diminishes that sacrifice and diminishes Terri's life as well as all of our lives.
This is exactly about whether or not what they did was Constitutional. Saying that Congress did not debate its Constitutional authority in this matter is like saying drug dealers didn't discuss the legality of their enterprise. That's what this entire thread is about. The actions of the Congress last Sunday cannot be justified. The Congress absolutely must operate within the boundaries of the Constitution or we are all lost.
And that's what being a conservative before being a Republican is all about.
did you see Holdonnow's posts on this thread ? Holdonnow is the screen name of Mark Levin. read them. i think he knows a tad more than the rest of us.
It doesn't really matter, the judge ignored congress.
If Florida law allowed Michael Schiavo to own slaves, don't you think Congress and/or the Federal courts would have something to say about it?
And this may sound callous, but if the hundreds of thousands who have died "protecting the Constitution" could see what their country would be like in 2005, I'd say that 99% of them wouldn't have bothered protecting the damn thing in the first place.
No, The question was answered before. Here are some posts worthy of reading.
The 14th Amendment made the bill of rights guarantees applicable to state actions, and not only federal actions.
The woman may be in jeopardy of being denied her life without due process of law, in violation of the due process clause of the US Constitution. That is, despite her case going through the due process of state courts, her rights to due process may have been violated from a federal perspective.
Congress reached no substantive conclusion on the issue one way or the other. They just used their legitimate Constitutional power to craft jurisdiction for a federal court to hear the matter. What that federal court decides (and what any appeals related to the matter concludes) stands.
This isn't rocket science, pal.
43 posted on 03/21/2005 3:27:07 PM EST by HitmanNY
There are two clauses that collectively might justify this legislation. The most important, which I do not believe has yet been mentioned in this thread, is Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which gives Congress power to enforce the provisions of (inter alia) Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment by appropriate legislation. Section 1, in turn, guarantees that no person will be deprived of life without due process of law. If there is a serious question about whether the process by which Terry Schiavo is being deprived of life comports with this provision, there is grounds for Congress to legislate under Section 5.
The "appropriate legislation" under Section 5 could easily include legislation pertaining to the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
The bottom line is that the enumerations of congressional power in Article I do not carry the day here. The Fourteenth Amendment might.
45 posted on 03/21/2005 3:27:45 PM EST by tenuredprof
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, section 1 of which reads:
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.
"Terri's Law" granted the US federal courts power to review decisions taken in this case by the Florida state courts. The most frequent use of the 14th amendment, is by death row inmates who have been sentenced for capital crimes in state courts, and appeal to the federal courts, claiming the state process was so deficient as to deprive them of "life" without "due process of law".
Terri's Law is, without question, constitutional.
49 posted on 03/21/2005 3:29:44 PM EST by RepublicanCentury
Congress is free to pass legislation pursuant to the 8th and 14th amendments, and it is free to expand (or limit) federal court jurisdiction. Even the federal court today understands this, which is why it is taking up the Schiavo case as I speak.
85 posted on 03/21/2005 3:43:19 PM EST by holdonnow
You've not stated an argument I can understand for your claim of unconstitutionality. You cite Art III for the proposition, I think that the federal courts have power unrelated to Congress's power to authorize it, which is simply not what it says. Here, however, we are dealing with a state court decision, and Congress is using the same Art. III power it has to establish these courts, to expand their jurisdiction, and you say that's not constitutional. Yet, Congress does this all the time. Look at the federal rules for civil procedure, as a simple example. And if there is federal authority, Congress is a legitimate branch of government and is certainly free to legislate in this regard. And the 8th and 14th amendments, as well as Art. III, are the basis for their action. Calling it a private bill is meaningless and of no consequence constitutionally. And then, to top it off, you argue for, or someone does, judicial review, presumably to explain the courts' right to have the final say, when judicial review is nowhere to be found in the federal constitution. You can't have it both ways.
112 posted on 03/21/2005 3:53:37 PM EST by holdonnow
You've not stated an argument I can understand for your claim of unconstitutionality. You cite Art III for the proposition, I think that the federal courts have power unrelated to Congress's power to authorize it, which is simply not what it says. Here, however, we are dealing with a state court decision, and Congress is using the same Art. III power it has to establish these courts, to expand their jurisdiction, and you say that's not constitutional. Yet, Congress does this all the time. Look at the federal rules for civil procedure, as a simple example. And if there is federal authority, Congress is a legitimate branch of government and is certainly free to legislate in this regard. And the 8th and 14th amendments, as well as Art. III, are the basis for their action. Calling it a private bill is meaningless and of no consequence constitutionally. And then, to top it off, you argue for, or someone does, judicial review, presumably to explain the courts' right to have the final say, when judicial review is nowhere to be found in the federal constitution. You can't have it both ways.
112 posted on 03/21/2005 3:53:37 PM EST by holdonnow
I have, and so has my wife, and should (God forbid) either one of us ever find ourselves in a position to make this decision for the other, those words will overcome every law, and every argument anyone else will ever make.
It's just a tough situation all around, and laws need to be changed.
No one, under any circumstances whatsoever should ever be legally denied food and water.
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.