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.
As much as I detest what is happening to Terri Schiavo and her family, and as much as I believe that her husband is scum, I think that short of a miracle, this case is lost under the law.
I also don't think that this action by Congress is anything more than a dog and pony show for the benefit of the voters.
The job of the Courts is to interpret the law as written, and to the best of my knowledge Terri Schiavo will starve to death because unfair and inhuman as it is, the law stands on the side of her husband.
I hope we learn from this, and set in place legislature to correct this gross injustice.
Pray for Terri and her family.
I believe that what is required at this point is to establish a standard of human behavior
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
....We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Absent the direct and personally expressed wishes of an individual.
No person shall be deprived of the basic needs of life; food and water.
Bump=0)
The Interstate Commerce Clause? They use it for everything else.
I would support congress, the supreme court, the President, the BATF, or any other entitity that could just make this story GO AWAY!!!!
I notice you don't quote the whole Constitution. Maybe there is something in the Fourteenth Amendment which is germane?
Who's STUPID idea was it to have mostly Congressional people of the Jewish faith get up and rant to have an innocent person STARVED to death!!!! That is what the NAZIS did to the Jewish people, and someone ILL-ADVISED the many Jewish people like, Barney Frank, Debbie Wasserman, Idiot Wexler, etc. be point people on this horrible way to die!!! INSANITY!! My Jewish husband was mortified.
You left out Article III, Section 1. And in Section 2, you will note that the Federal courts may hear any case having a Constitutional argument. If you will read further the legislation passesd yesterday, the legislation requires the case have a basis in the Constitution. Presto. It's easy to find the power.
When the judges are corrupt and morally bankrupt congress can have its say. Congress is the supreme authority--says so right in the constitution.
Article XIV.
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.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
14th amendment.
I don't like what happened to a relative of mine in state court. They won't tell me if they agree, but on their behalf, I will ask congress to federalize my case individually on a special basis usurping state rights. That is the precedent being set here.
In its Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, decision the U.S. Supreme Court addressed only states' authority in the refusal of medical treatment (the feeding tube).
... The Court was careful to qualify and limit its support of the Missouri Supreme Court's decision.
As opposed to the latter's nearly outright denial of an individual's right to refuse medical treatment, the U.S. Supreme Court's majority opinion asserted that a competent person has a "constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment."
And although the Court upheld Missouri's requirement that there be "clear and convincing evidence" of an incompetent patient's previously expressed wishes before treatment can be discontinued, it did not make such evidence mandatory for states with different law.
Finally, in a separate concurring opinion Justice Sandra Day O'Connor asserted that a patient-designated proxy could be an acceptable "source of evidence" of a patient's intent. If the proxy does in fact have some constitutional status, this status should motivate state courts and legislatures to recognize the practice.
PMID: 10107437 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
This is a case to authorize the termination of life-prolonging procedures under
chapter 765, Florida Statutes (1997), and under the constitutional guidelines
enunciated in In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So.2d 4 (Fla.1990).
...the Schindlers argue that the testimony, which was conflicting, was
insufficient to support the trial court's decision by clear and convincing evidence.
We have reviewed that testimony and conclude that the trial court had sufficient
evidence to make this decision. The clear and convincing standard of proof, while
very high, permits a decision in the face of inconsistent or conflicting evidence.
...
Her statements to her friends and family about the dying process were few
and they were oral. Nevertheless, those statements, along with other evidence
about Theresa, gave the trial court a sufficient basis to make this decision for
her.
...
After due consideration, we
conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this
question as he did.
there may be occasions when an inheritance could be a reason to question a surrogate's ability to make an objective decision. In this case, however, Michael Schiavo has not been allowed to make a decision to disconnect life-support. The Schindlers have not been allowed to make a decision to maintain life-support. Each party in this case, absent their disagreement, might have been a suitable surrogate decision-maker for Theresa. Because Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers could not agree on the proper decision and the inheritance issue created the appearance of conflict, Michael Schiavo, as the guardian of Theresa, invoked the trial court's jurisdiction to allow the trial court to serve as the surrogate decision-maker.There's more about the choice Michael made and how "In this context, the trial court essentially serves as the ward's guardian."
I think a better question is where is the power of Michael Schiavo and the State of Florida to execute Terri derived from?
Good post bump.
None of this federal intervention would be necessary if Jeb Bush would assert his proper authority as chief executive officer of Florida and nullify this homicidal judge's ruling.