Posted on 03/22/2005 1:57:17 PM PST by Cagey
WASHINGTON (AP) - Not all conservatives are happy with the decision by Congress and President Bush to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case. Some leaders said Tuesday the new law allowing a federal court review of the case is an example of the big government they have always opposed.
"To simply say that the 'culture of life,' or whatever you call it means that we don't have to pay attention to the principles of federalism or separation of powers is certainly not a conservative viewpoint," said former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga.
Allan Lichtman, who chairs the history department at American University in Washington, said the intervention of Congress and Bush to try to overturn the decision by Schiavo's husband not to prolong her life is the antithesis of several conservative principles.
"It contradicts a lot of what those behind it say they believe: the sanctity of the family, the sacred bond between husband and wife, the ability of all of us to make private decisions without the hand of government intervening, deference to states and localities as opposed to the centralized government," said Lichtman.
Leading SchoolsUniversityof PhoenixWaldenUniversityKaplanEllisUndergradDevryOnlineJonesInternationalKWUKellerGrad School of Management Choose a programBusinessMBAComputers& ITHealth& MedicineEducationEngineeringCriminalJusticeAssociatesDegreesCanadianResidents
Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped briefly. She can breathe on her own, but has relied on a feeding tube to keep her alive since.
The feeding tube was removed Friday under a Florida court order, but Congress passed a law Monday requiring a federal court review of the case in the hope that the judge hearing it would order the tube reinserted. U.S. District Court Judge James Whittemore of Tampa rejected the plea of Schiavo's parents to do that.
The case evolved into a cause for social "right to life" conservatives who oppose abortion and euthanasia. Bush justified the action, saying the case was complex but that it was better to err on the side of life.
David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, says he has mixed feelings about what Congress and Bush did.
Conservatives "who questioned the wisdom of the federal government reaching down and interfering with the state courts have a very valid point," Keene said. "In Congress, most conservatives have said, 'We're cognizant of that fact and that's why we have done this so narrowly because we don't think there's another choice.' But those who are concerned about precedent should be concerned about it."
Julian E. Zelizer, a Boston University history professor who specializes in congressional trends, said a conservative Republican movement that "built itself in the 1970s around attacking government has become the party of big government since 2000."
"Starting with the war against terrorism and climaxing with Congress intervening in this case, we see a GOP that is quite comfortable flexing the muscle of Washington, and a Democratic Party which is increasingly finding itself in favor of limiting government," Zelizer said.
LOL - funny stuff!
Isn't Bob Barr the same guy who opposes protecting marriage as between one man and one woman? Who needs these UNconservative dregs in the GOP?
What a bunch of crap! Allen Lichtman has not insight whatsoever to the Republican party and conservatives for the most part like Bob Barr, but are suspicious of him ever since he joined the ACLU.
Since the law applied only to Terry's case, I don't think this is a big deal. A more interesting question is why the Dems are now doing a reversal and telling us that state's rights are good.
What an ignorant statement.
Here is an editorial by the supposed 'conservative' Bob Barr where he attacks those who seek to defend marriage.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A23357-2003Aug20¬Found=true
Heh... Standard-issue wishful-thinking "there's fracture a-brewin' on the Right!" article. Media churns out one of these stories every 2 or 3 weeks in the hopes that one of 'em will stick.
Allan Lichtman is certainly not on the right. He is, in fact, irrational.
In the Texas redistricting case, Lichtman testified for the Democrats that Martin Frost's old district (33% black) was a functioning minority district. He also said that a new district proposed by the GOP legislature (50+% Hispanic) would not be a functioning minority district.
I'm one of those republicans who agree. This belongs in the state courts and just because you disagree with the ruling doesn't mean you change the rules. By doing this, individual rights have been diminished.
"It contradicts a lot of what those behind it say they believe: the sanctity of the family, the sacred bond between husband and wife, the ability of all of us to make private decisions without the hand of government intervening, deference to states and localities as opposed to the centralized government," said Lichtman.
I, for one, agree.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1368229/posts
881503CONCUR v. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPT. OF HEALTH
No. 881503
[June 25, 1990]
Justice Scalia, concurring.
The various opinions in this case portray quite clearly the difficult, indeed agonizing, questions that are presented by the constantly increasing power of science to keep the human body alive for longer than any reasonable person would want to inhabit it. The States have begun to grapple with these problems through legislation. I am concerned, from the tenor of today's opinions, that we are poised to confuse that enterprise as successfully as we have confused the enterprise of legislating concerning abortionrequiring it to be conducted against a background of federal constitutional imperatives that are unknown because they are being newly crafted from Term to Term. That would be a great misfortune.
While I agree with the Court's analysis today, and therefore join in its opinion, I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicideincluding suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored. It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know no more about "life-and-death" than they do) that they will decide upon a line less reasonable.
-snip-
There are some issue that transcend political ideology. I'm disappointed that some conservatives don't understand this.
This is a cop-out by a legislative branch which is too weak or too politically inept to monitor and even impeach the judical branch.
"A more interesting question is why the Dems are now doing a reversal and telling us that state's rights are good."
Not sure I would want to play "Risk" with the president.
How have individual rights been diminished? I don't feel as if I've lost any rights.
There was once another culture that had the same battle. But someone came along who seemed to put individual persons above the laws of that culture. Many people say today that the law cannot be 'bent' for one person. This other culture said the same thing. But the person in this other culture did put others above the 'law.' In fact in doing so this person incurred the wrath of the judiciary of that culture. They viewed the law as being above all else. But the person who angered them so said the law was made FOR man, not man for the law. So he broke their rules, went against the culture. He broke a holy tenant of that culture. And the wrath he incurred led to the culture condemning him to death. And the sentence was carried out.
What was the great violation of his culture. He healed a man on the Sabbath.
But the law they said was from God Himself. So when we look at the laws of God, and the laws of democracy we can ask ourselves what this man asked his culture: "Which is lawful: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But those who condemned him remained silent. (From Mark 3:4).
So today we can choose to be like the Pharisees and Sanhedrin, putting the law above man, or we choose to be, well like God would have us be, to do good and save life, not destroy it.
AP trying to split conservatives again.
Government should always be activist in defending higher principles and the right to life and liberty. The Democrats aren't "in favor of limiting government." They're only against government defending life and liberty.
People before principle.
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.