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.
It doesn't, so your point is moot.
Yes, I was dodging the question. Because I shouldn't have to REWRITE what was already stated and said. Go through this thread again. You jumped right in the middle when the question was already answered, by a Constitutional scholar and best selling author.
Florida law (as do most States) allows the closest family members to make this decision for their loved ones; who would you rather have in charge of making that decision for YOUR spouse should you ever find yourself in this predicament?
The State?
You better than most should understand that this country is governed by laws, and the laws governing this case failed to foresee a situation like this.
The laws have to be rewritten, but they can't be ignored.
The notion that these major medical decisions are being made by someone who has maintained the illusion of a spousal relationship for no other reason than to ensure that he can legally bring about his wife's death is utterly bizarre.
So we're citing political media personalities now?
Here's one for you:
"For Congress and the president to then step in and try to override that by shifting the venue to a federal court was a legal travesty, a flagrant violation of federalism and the separation of powers. The federal judge who refused to reverse the Florida court was certainly true to the law."
-- Charles Krauthammer
P.S. For Levin to cite the fourteenth amendment in defense of this action is so very typical of lawyer-speak and so very typical of the hypocrisy of the legal profession. The next time some activist judge uses the fourteenth amendment to push a liberal agenda, I feel sure he will be screaming "original intent" at the top of his lungs with the rest of the lemmings.
A pox on media lawyers.
(CNSNews.com) - With some Democrats in Congress worrying about the precedent setting potential of a new law aimed at sparing the life of Terri Schindler Schiavo, a former Supreme Court nominee told Cybercast News Service Monday that such congressional intervention was not so unusual.
Robert Bork, a Reagan administration nominee whom the U.S. Senate refused to confirm, called the federal legislation signed by President Bush early Monday morning something that "happens with some regularity."
excerpt from this article
Unfortunately, when dealing with the Courts, you can only address the legality of issues.
Michael Schiavo is still legally Terri's husband...to a certain extent, that's the fault of Florida laws that make it extremely difficult to divorce a mentally handicapped individual.
I live in a country that owes its very existence to a bunch of people who overthrew their government just because they thought the f#%&ing taxes were too high, so this high-minded, sanctimonous crap about the "rule of law" and the "legal system" doesn't mean a damn thing to me in a matter of life and death.
Am I the only one who sees a difference between an individual filing a writ of habeas corpus with the Federal courts and Congress intruding jursidiction of the Fedral courts on the states? Well, apparently at least Charles Krauthammer sees the difference as well.
I'll say this a different way: If you use the activist, liberal interpretation of the fourteenth amendment and combine it with Article III, you end up with a potent precedent that will come back to haunt us. In fact, at this point, given this action, we might as well disband the state courts now. What useful purpose do they serve? After that, how big a step is it to decide that the state legislatures are redundant and inefficient? Let's get rid of them as well.
Would you approve of the President taking extraordinary measures to secure Terri's safety in defiance of the courts, i.e., ordering Federal Marshalls to take her into protective custody - things that may not be considered currently within Presidential powers? Or, maybe purposely defying federal and state judges rulings doing other preemptive actions to help?
The majority chillingly said yes. This from Conservatives....stunning and scary.
NCSteve:
42 Democrats as well as the Republicans voted yes. And of all the arguements, NOT ONE was whether or not this is constitutional.
I'm not going to argue back and forth. All the information is here on this thread.
""""""""Check out the latest Freeper poll question asking if Conservatives would approve of the president acting outsie the constitution:
Would you approve of the President taking extraordinary measures to secure Terri's safety in defiance of the courts, i.e., ordering Federal Marshalls to take her into protective custody - things that may not be considered currently within Presidential powers? Or, maybe purposely defying federal and state judges rulings doing other preemptive actions to help?
The majority chillingly said yes. This from Conservatives....stunning and scary.""""""""
What about the fact that a judge has acted outside the constitution?! Sentencing a disabled woman to death by starvation! How many clauses ban that!
If I was in florida and I could, I would walk into Yerri's room myself and insert her feeding tube myself. I swear. I would give her an icechip and be arrested.
""Michael Schiavo is still legally Terri's husband...to a certain extent""
1- Polygomy is illegal. He has a common law wife.
The only one claiming she can be rehabilitated is the parent's doctor who is a quack and a fraud. He claims he was nominated for the Nobel prize - he wasn't he was suggested for the prize by his own congressman - only the Nobel approved list of people an nominate a person and the same doctor was fined by the board for bad medical practices.
You have been frauded and hoaxed by people playing to your heartstrings. That manipulation is exactly what demogogues do and that so many conservatives have fallen for it means its near the twilight for the republic.
No, they aren't really conservatives. They're religious crusaders who've glomed onto an issue to make it theirs. They operate under the guise of "conservatives" when it suits them.
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.