Posted on 03/23/2005 3:43:40 PM PST by AZ_Cowboy
Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: 1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard), 2) investigate an alleged violation of federal gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms), and 3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization Service).
So how about a Republican governor sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida? Republicans like the military. Democrats get excited about the use of military force only when it's against Americans.
In two of the three cases mentioned above, the Democrats' use of force was in direct contravention of court rulings. Admittedly, this was a very long time ago – back in U.S. history when the judiciary was only one of the three branches of our government. Democratic Gov. Orval Faubus called out the Arkansas National Guard expressly for purposes of defying rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts.
The decadent buffoon Bill Clinton sent armed agents from the INS to seize a small boy from an American family – despite rulings by the majestic and infallible Florida courts granting custody of the boy to that very family.
None of these exercises of military force has gone down in history as a noble moment, but that's because of the underlying purpose of the force, not the fact that force was used.
To the contrary, what has gone down in history as a glorious moment for the republic was when President Dwight Eisenhower (Republican) called out military force of his own. In response to Gov. Faubus' abuse of the National Guard, Eisenhower simultaneously revoked Faubus' control of the National Guard and ordered the 101st Airborne Division to escort black students to school. (Minutes later, Democrats pronounced the Arkansas public schools a "hopeless quagmire" and demanded to know what Ike's exit strategy was.)
As important as it was to enforce the constitutional right to desegregated schools, isn't it also important to enforce Terri Schiavo's right to due process before she is killed by starvation?
Liberals' newfound respect for "federalism" is completely disingenuous. People who support a national policy on abortion are prohibited from ever using the word "federalism."
I note that whenever liberals talk about "federalism" or "states' rights," they are never talking about a state referendum or a law passed by the duly elected members of a state legislature – or anything voted on by the actual citizens of a state. What liberals mean by "federalism" is: a state court ruling. Just as "choice" refers to only one choice, "the rule of law" refers only to "the law as determined by a court."
As a practical matter, courts will generally have the last word in interpreting the law because courts decide cases. But that's a pragmatic point. There is nothing in the law, the Constitution or the concept of "federalism" that mandates giving courts the last word. Other public officials, including governors and presidents, are sworn to uphold the law, too.
It would be chaotic if public officials made a habit of disregarding court rulings simply because they disagreed with them. But a practice borne of practicality has led the courts to greater and greater flights of arrogance. Sublimely confident that no one will ever call their bluff, courts are now regularly discovering secret legal provisions requiring abortion and gay marriage and prohibiting public prayer and Ten Commandments displays.
Just once, we need an elected official to stand up to a clearly incorrect ruling by a court. Any incorrect ruling will do, but my vote is for a state court that has ordered a disabled woman to be starved to death at the request of her adulterous husband.
Florida state court Judge George Greer – last heard from when he denied an order of protection to a woman weeks before her husband stabbed her to death – determined that Terri would have wanted to be starved to death based on the testimony of her husband, who was then living with another woman. (The judge also took judicial notice of the positions of O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson and Robert Blake.) The husband also happened to be the only person present when the oxygen was cut off to Terri's brain in the first place. He now has two children with another woman.
Greer has refused to order the most basic medical tests for brain damage before condemning a woman to death. Despite all those years of important, searching litigation we keep hearing about, Terri has yet to receive either an MRI or a PET scan – although she may be allowed to join a support group for women whose husbands are trying to kill them.
Greer has cut off the legal rights of Terri's real family and made her husband (now with a different family) her sole guardian, citing as precedent the landmark "Fox v. Henhouse" ruling of 1893. Throughout the process that would result in her death sentence, Terri was never permitted her own legal counsel. Evidently, they were all tied up defending the right to life of child-molesting murderers.
Given the country's fetishism about court rulings, this may be a rash assumption, but I presume if Greer had ordered that Terri Schiavo be shot at her husband's request – a more humane death, by the way – the whole country would not sit idly by, claiming to be bound by the court's ruling because of the "rule of law" and "federalism." President Bush would order the FBI to protect her and Gov. Bush would send in the state police.
What was supposed to be the "least dangerous" branch has become the most dangerous – literally to the point of ordering an innocent American woman to die, and willfully disregarding congressional subpoenas. They can't be stopped – solely because the entire country has agreed to treat the pronouncements of former ambulance-chasers as the word of God. The only power courts have is that everyone jumps when they say "jump." (Also, people seem a little intimidated by the black robes. From now on we should make all judges wear lime-green leisure suits.)
President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said of a Supreme Court ruling he opposed: "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." The court's ruling was ignored. And yet, somehow, the republic survived.
If Gov. Jeb Bush doesn't say something similar to the Florida courts that have ordered Terri Schiavo to die, he'll be the second Republican governor disgraced by the illiterate ramblings of a state judiciary. Gov. Mitt Romney will never recover from his acquiescence to the Massachusetts Supreme Court's miraculous discovery of a right to gay marriage. Neither will Gov. Bush if he doesn't stop the torture and murder of Terri Schiavo.
If a crazy judge orders an innocent persons killed, nothing can be done? That's nonsense.
BTTT.
You are correct. The idea of the National Guard staging a raid on the hospice and taking this woman hostage can be done in an irresponsible manner. (See Klintoon's raid on the Miami relatives.) But it doesn't mean such action should not be taken.
If the executive branch of Florida is going to take custody of Terri Schiavo and it is getting close to time to decide, then we should be very clear about what we are doing. First, any action along these lines would be extra-constitutional. The Florida executive branch has no codified legal authority at this point to take custody of Terri Schaivo. It will do our side a great disservice to say such authority exists or mask it the guise of declaring war on the judiciary or some other nonsense because when the minute Ed Rendell uses such action to save Mumia Abu Jamal from death row, we will be powerless to stop it.
The authority to take custody of this woman by the Executive lay in natural law principles. We are all vested with the right to live and the power to choose our own fate. These rights come from our Creator and no system or branch of government can take these rights away.
Terri Schiavo is incapacitated. She has no ability to make end of life care decisions for herself. The state court finding of fact (that she wished to die in this manner) is a travesty. Anyone who says I disagree with Greer's decision but it must stand is a moral coward. Subsequent court action has failed to overturn this decision. Both the state and federal judiciary have failed to protect and have ultimately denied this woman's inherent right to live and choose her own destiny.
The judiciary has no power ro deny Terri Schiavo her inherent right to life. Their actions masked in legalisms and codified procedural mumbo job are themselves violations of natural law. Therefore, it is we the people who must protect Terri Schiavo or else all our inherent rights will be at the whim of the judiciary.
We, the people, are the government. If, the judiciary cannot and will not save her, and the legislature has washed its hands of the matter, then the People represented by the Executive branch can and should protect these inherent rights. And that is why I would support Jeb Bush taking this woman into custody.
If you disagree, I can't blame you. But when the current legal system will not protect Terri Schiavo's inherent rights, then other action must be undertaken.
He gets many hits and can drive some stories short term (like the exit poll hysteria) but I think there's much truth to what you say.
Drudge is a quick stop on the way to much more breadth and depth on the powerbloggers, who can collectively raise and resolve significant issues with remarkable speed.
Well said.
Deep down the Bushes know they can stop this crime. If they are unwilling to do so, it's a sad day for all of us.
I will also predict that Jeb has miscalculated. No action will end his chance for the White House, if that is where he aspires to be.
"I will also predict that Jeb has miscalculated"
Yes, look at today (3-25-2005) Freep Poll on Jeb Bush's inaction to defy Greer. Very interesting spread of opinions. I find it significant that a little over 30% of Freep members either have lost some or a great deal of respect for him. If this is representative of the GOPs base, they had better look and listen.
It WILL happen, either now or later. The Two Cultures on this country are irreconcilable; the only solution is to defeat the Blue State Culture, whose motto is "death for babies and invalids, mercy for pedophiles and killers."
President Andrew Jackson?
Right on Ann!
lol, you're a mess! ... thanks for the laugh, it helped.
THANKS ANN!
Ann scores another bullseye!
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.