Posted on 03/21/2005 12:05:39 PM PST by Wolfstar
"What about the right to LIFE LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness? "
The Declaration of Independence has no legal standing, else countless drug users would refer to the 'pursuit of happiness' part in their legal proceedings.
Where is the federal government granted authority over education?
The ICC, of course.
Where is the federal government granted authority to mandate expensive and unnecessary explosive devices in the dashboards of motor vehicles?
ICC.
Talk about selective outrage.
I'm not the constitutional scholar, far from it, but doesn't the 14th guarantee equality before the law? In any case, if we do not have equality before the law, we are sunk.
Yes, it most certainly is. Read relevant language is up above. Or read the entire Constitution for yourself. Here's a link.
"While I sympathize with Terri, I agree that this is not a federal issue. Congress and the federal courts should stay out of it."
Ok, then the president should just declare martial law and totally ignore any and all courts. This is a life and death issue. I am firmly convinced that the founders would not intend that the Federal Government could not intercede when a human life was at stake - held captive by an out of control state judiciary that is in opposition to both the legislative and executive branches of that State's government. This issue is about restoring balance.
The Federal judge who will hear the appeal is a Clinton appointee. Any chance he is a lib? Any hope he will rule for Terri? It's doubtful and the RATs win again. Then there will be the precedence--abortion to euthanasia, both justified by law. That's the most distressing outcome, aside from killing Terri.
Not sure why. The 14th Amendment seems to apply to both cases.
Florida is not killing her, her legal guardian is claiming that she would not want to be kept alive in her condition - persistent vegetative state - she is basically brain dead.
Since there is a dispute, the court has to decide whose wishes to carry out. I sympathize with Terri, but saying that the court is trying to kill a mentally disabled woman isn't true.
""There is a case to be made that keeping someone trapped in a virtually nonfunctional body, dependent upon others to provide the basic needs of survival, unable to move, for a prolonged period of time is indeed cruel and unusual punishment.""
That's where you make the mistake. Terri is not non functional and she is not a vegitable.
Who is going to rule in favor of Michael Schiavo very soon.
If you look close you'll notice that the founding fathers put the greatest power in the hands of the branch populated by the greatest number of bodies. The executive branch is the weakest of the three, followed by the judiciary and then the congress. Congress, while possesing the greatest power, is also the branch most vulnerable to public opinion/pressure. So that's how Congress is checked. Brilliant system they created and I would say it's working just as it should in Terri's case.
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.
It ought to be noted that 'We The People' establish Congress every two years, and that is where the buck really stops.
BTW, thank you for your reasoned argument. It's much appreciated since the point of this thread is to get people to think about the Constitutional implications of this case.
"There is no Right to die."
Sure there is. Living wills have provisions for this very sort of situation. However, if my memory serves me, Ms. Schiavo's opinions on the subject are known only to her scumbag hubby. Since she didn't specifically have this 'request to die' on anything legal, I don't get why her parents can't simply claim her and care for her themselves.
Meaning: I think this is a state issue, not a Fed one and I think the parents should be able to care for their child, especially given the actions of that scumbag husband.
I'm confused. Are you saying that the courts DO have the power to hear this? So you're in favor of letting the federal courts decide?
Not really accurate. The judge simply determined who has the power to make that decision. If the husband decided to not go forward with removing the feeding tube, he could do so.
Will do.
Huh???
How many passes by judges does it take?
Shopping for a sympathetic judge...
Is there estrogen in the water this week?
That's the spirit, they do it so why shouldn't we? After all, 'our' cause is just....Amazing how so many many Republicans are willing to throw out the Constitution 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.