Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; --between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Didn't you listen to Rush today?
Congress controls the courts. Article 4 or 5 I think.
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
While I sympathize with Terri, I agree that this is not a federal issue. Congress and the federal courts should stay out of it.
Article 3, Section 1
"The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
So Congress can ordain and establish inferior courts. Who knew Congress has the power to establish a court or disestablish one too.
Good post.
Congress has authority to give jurisdiction to federal courts to hear federal cases. The problem with this particular matter is that there doesn't appear to be a federal case for the court to hear at all, regardless of the grant of jurisdiction. Congress can give jurisdiction to the court; but neither Congress nor the court can pull a case out of its ass, which is what they're trying to do here.
Where is the power of the courts to get involved? It's not in the Constitution. So that means the court must get its power from the legislature, and if it does get its power from the legislature, then the legislature has the right to change that legal authority.
I hope we remember these arguments when some skid is on death row i doubt the rats will be sayin the federal courts dont have authority
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.
Where have you been? Try rereading the 14th amendment.
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.
The authority is in one of those hidden penumbras or the "Elastic Clause". Remember, the Constitution is an evolving document.
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."
If they are not going to provide for the protection of the right of a person to life....none of the rest matters.
I would also point out that very shortly before Terri's mysterious "collapse," she had stated before witnesses that she wanted to divorce him, i.e., she DID NOT WANT him making important decisions for her.
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 14
Amendment 14 - Citizenship rights
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.
A better question would be why do lefties only kill innocents, and scream like banshees when a serial murder or such gets the death penalty?
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.