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.

[GeekDejure]

What if the federal judge also dides against Terri?

======

Sorry... I'm prohibited from giving you a truthful answer, because
it would be considered promoting violence against the *&#$@&
judge, and that's an absolute NO NO on FreeRepublic !!! ;-))

[demlosers]

For sure they control the lower Federal courts. They can abolish or establish them as they see fit. I'd like them to abolish the ninth circuit. :)

[HitmanLV]

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.

[MortMan]

Congress has the ability to define the jurisdiction of every federal court - except (at least in some instances) the supreme court. That is what this law did - it assigned jurisdiction in this matter to a federal court for review.

Oh, and the constitution prohibits "bills of attainder" that prescribe punishment to an individual. It does not prohibit laws that benefit an individual (although there is a valid argument to be had concerning the tradeoff between specificity and unintended consequences of broader bills).

[tenuredprof]

This is a quick and dirty answer that is not based on a careful study of the bill or the issue, so this is subject to clarification or qualification when I consider it more carefully, but . . . .

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.

[hushpad]

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

Good! Guess Roe V Wade can now be overturned, thrown-out, whatever!

[Wolfstar]

Thanks for posting the actual bill. I had not read the language before. So it is specific not even to Terri, but to her parents. In other words, it goes even further into potentially unconstitutional territory by taking sides in a legal dispute.

[ClintonBeGone]

Where have you been? Try rereading the 14th amendment.

[RepublicanCentury]

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.

[1L]

>>Doing it for a single individual is where the problem lies.<<

If that's where you see the problem, then there's no problem. There's nothing in the constitution prohibiting such actions, and I don't think either this court, the Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court is going to hang any unconstitutional ruling on the idea of Congress having only expressed powers (i.e. can't do anything that's not expressly permitted). THAT would open up the floodgates of litigation to virtually everything Congress has done in the last 40 years. All one needs is standing to bring a case, and you're in.

[Howlin]

Brave bump. :-)

[Wolfstar]

I don't believe a federal court would find that a constitutional infirmity.

If you're right, then I would be more comfortable with what Congress did.

BTW, people should not incorrectly assume that because I started a discussion on the Constitutional merits of this case, I'm in favor of the removal of Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube. I am not.

[DannyTN]

SEC. 3. RELIEF. After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

Well that explains why the judge hasn't yet acted. The way the law is written, he has to consider the merits of the suit first before issuing injunctive relief.

[StoneColdGOP]

Congress can establish and unestablish (is that a word?) federal courts inferior to the U.S. Supreme Court, indeed, but that's all.

[ambrose]

The authority is in one of those hidden penumbras or the "Elastic Clause". Remember, the Constitution is an evolving document.

[ClintonBeGone]

Doesn't that violate separation of powers?

Reread the constitution. Congress IS the ultimate check on the federal courts.

[Wolfstar]

The Courts get their power from Congress.

Wrong. The federal courts get their power from the United States Constitution. The state courts get their power from their state constitutions.

[Alberta's Child]

While this specific issue can be argued one way or another, I think it is very important to remember something about Congress' actions in the Schiavo case and the legal process soon to follow in Federal courts: I could make a more compelling case for Federal involvement in the Schiavo situation than for the U.S. Supreme Court's involvement in Bush v. Gore

I find it odd that none of the Freepers out there who are such high-minded "strict constructionists" in this case were using similar constitutional arguments to support the Florida Supreme Court's decisions (in favor of Al Gore) in the 2000 presidential election.

[FreedomSurge]

Read the penumbra of the Constitution. It's all there.

[Brilliant]

Try Article V, "No persons shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

The judge has ordered this woman's death. The federal courts have the power to determine whether she was accorded due process. Since she had no attorney, and was given no MRI, and is being essentially totured to death, I think a pretty good argument can be made that the answer to that question is "no."