Posted on 03/25/2005 4:33:23 AM PST by ex-Texan
Jeb Bush may take Terri Schiavo into state care
The war over the fate of Terri Schiavo was entering its final stages today as her parents clung to two slim hopes of preventing their severely brain-damaged daughter from being allowed to die.
The 41-year-old has been without food or water for almost seven days, after her feeding tube was removed last Friday on the orders of a Florida state judge.
Friends and lawyers say she is showing signs of dehydration - flaky skin, dry tongue and lips, and sunken eyes. Doctors have said she would probably die within a week or two of the tube being removed.
"It's very frustrating. Every minute that goes by is a minute that Terri is being starved and dehydrated to death," said her brother, Bobby Schindler, who said seeing her was like looking at "pictures of prisoners in concentration camps".
But Brian Schiavo, the brother of Mrs Schiavo's husband Michael who has argued for her to be allowed to die with dignity, strongly disagreed, telling CNN that Terri Schiavo "does look a little withdrawn" but insisting she was not in pain. He added that starvation is simply "part of the death process".
One of the final hopes of Mrs Schiavo's parents lies in the federal courts. Last night Bob and Mary Schindler went back before a federal judge in Tampa, filing another emergency request that the feeding tube be reattached while they pursue claims that their daughter's rights are being violated.
District Judge James Whittemore previously rejected an almost identical request on Tuesday. He promised to work through the night to issue his new ruling.
The second and more dramatic hope lies in the hands of Jeb Bush, the Governor of Florida, who was last night considering the politically explosive step of ordering state officials to force their way into the hospice where Mrs Schiavo lies motionless and take her into state custody, in defiance of the US courts.
A Florida judge yesterday rejected a request by Governor Bush to allow the state to take custody of her, but the governor's aides afterwards refused to rule out further action.
The possibility emerged on Wednesday night, when Governor Bush declared that Mrs Schiavo - who court-appointed doctors say has been in persistent vegetative state for 15 years - had been misdiagnosed. He based his assertion on "new information" provided by William Cheshire, a Florida neurologist, who says that she may only be in a "minimally conscious" state.
Although Dr Cheshire, a leading member of the Christian right-to-life movement, did not examine Mrs Schiavo, he observed her for an hour on March 1. Governor Bush maintained that his testimony was compelling enough for the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) to take her into protective custody.
On Wednesday night, amid reports that Florida state officials were "mobilising" outside Mrs Schiavo's hospice, Florida Circuit Judge George Greer issued an emergency restraining order prohibiting DCF agents from seizing her.
Judge Greer then formally rejected Governor Bush's custody request yesterday. Last night he refused to hold a new hearing to assess Dr Cheshire's claims.
He also ordered the local sheriff's department not to allow state officials into Mrs Schiavo's hospice - but, under Florida law, the governor has the power, without court clearance, of taking a citizen into custody for a 24-hour appraisal if it is suspected they are in jeopardy.
Very long article . . Click Here to Read More
What I said to Merry goes to you too. If a law mandates injustice, we as a nation with a conscience and a set of morals are obligated to break that law.
The only way I'll embrace George Greer is wearing my bodice with the spikes coming out.
Come to think of it, Schiavo and Felos could probably use a nice big Texas-girl hug right now too.
In Florida, state judges are elected, I believe. It ought to be fairly easy to get rid of some of those. [Greer comes to mind -- he's incompetent, constitutionally speaking. He just makes it all up as he goes along, to secure the outcomes he favors, and the Constitution be d*mn*d. And he originally secured office in an election in which he ran unopposed.] But in other states, and at the federal level, where judges are appointed to office by the governor and confirmed by the legislature, impeachment is the only route to get rid of them. But it would take a very brave and vigorous governor/state legislature to undertake an impeachment of a sitting judge, considering the hue and cry the Left would raise if one of their own were to be subjected to the impeachment process. It's a tough nut to crack, keysguy...but not impossible.
Well said.
"A nation of laws."
That's sad. We used to be a nation of men.
Now we're a nation of spineless pussies.
But again, the problem is that my pursuit of happiness is not necessarily yours. What if what makes you happy, deprives me of my pursuit of happiness?
Did the framers believe the First Amendment would take away prayer from the schools, or allow state secrets to be published, Satanism allowed as religion.
Did they anticipate the types of weapons we current are able to produce when they wrote the second?
No
Did they think the Fifth Amendment would allow crimes to go unpunished because people wouldn't testify?
Probably not.
They also thought public scurgings and whippings were not "cruel and unusual."
And are those people who seemingly disagree with you truly disbelievers?
I found this quote from Jeb I found quite interesting:
"We never said that unilaterally we would do something that's against the court," he said. "I've been asked to do it by a lot of people – a lot of the advice I'm getting over the Internet and over television and the like. I know that there were lots of rumors of things that aren't accurate. I have a duty to uphold the law and I have been very consistent about that. It seemed like a big story that never was confirmed because it wasn't true. If we had that ability to do it, if there wasn't an injunction, we would do it right now. We would stabilize her by giving her hydration. We couldn't put a feeding tube in. There was already a court order in place. The opportunity we had was appealing his decision."
If you swear an oath to God to uphold a set of rules, the Constitution, are you not moral obligated to uphold those laws even if you disagree with them?
Isn't it obvious? I would order DoJ to take Terri into protective custody and save her life. I know it would cause a constitutional crisis (though I highly doubt a "civil war" as you suggest), but it is time for that. The judiciary controls entirely too much power. It is time to put then back into their original place.
At this point I don't expect the governor to act. I continue to pray for her nevertheless.
Death is not a right. It is a fact, but it is not a right. This is the flaw in the argument which has brought us to this point.
Doctors and hospitals exist in service to life, or they have no point. Its not difficult to observe what has happened in Holland, where the right to die has become entrenched. They have on paper a rather careful procedure by which the decision to die is worked out with the agreement of all parties, patient, doctors, family, and then reviewed by a committe.
In actual fact, the doctors have taken to making the decision on their own, without discussing it with anyone. If the doctor thinks you aren't a good candidate for treatment, you get the syringe with the cocktail in it, without even being told.
In a way, this has always been so, even here. Its too easy for a doctor to decide that it isn't worth continuing the fight, and to simply fail to order some treatment, or reassign a machine that the patient is dependent on. I've seen it done, they say its counterproductive to remain too long on a given treatment, and discontinue it knowing full well that without it the patient is dead.
Then they look solemn and say they did all they could.
But since the public presumption has been toward life, they had to at least go through the motions of trying to help.
Since the "right to die" has become vogue, the pressure now is on the patient to pull the plug on themselves, so as not to be any further burden to their families, and the doctors have been able to come out of the closet, so to speak. So now, if you don't explicitly demand to keep fighting, they may begin to withhold treatment, and if you do demand to fight on, they may quietly withhold treatment anyway.
Everyone understands that at some point some treatments make no further sense and its time to let go. When exactly that is has always been left in the gray areas of the law, between the families and the doctors. In trying to make the law explicit, though, life has been placed on the defensive.
If you have to ask for "extraordinary measures", then the very nature of the fight for life has already been transformed from a noble struggle to a pointless inconvenience. When food and water have been redefined as "extraordinary", we have crossed over into that Brave New World that was once just a writer's imagination.
I'm not afraid to die. If I am injured or ill, I don't want anyone to go to any "extraordinary measures" on my behalf, I want them to do their jobs, and to do them because life matters to them. I don't want to do a "living will" which is a roadmap for your own abandonment. I want to trust myself to people who care about me, who in turn will trust me to people who care about life, and between them I want to trust that they will do the right thing, without trying to define in advance what that might be.
When my death comes, I want it to be because its time, and not because someone has decided that I'm not worth the trouble.
If that makes any sense.
Article. II.
Section. 1.
Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Clause 3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President. (See Note 8)
Clause 4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Clause 6: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, (See Note 9) the Same shall devolve on the VicePresident, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
Clause 7: The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
### If anything, Article II Section 1 Clause 8—his oath of office—forbids him to act in the manner you suggest. This is an oath the president swears with his hand on a Bible.
Thanks! It troubles me that it falls on more than a few deaf ears here. A lot of folks prefer law to justice.
Perhaps his authority to act is in a "prenumbra". Surely the courts will recognize that!
Where did the constitution empower Lincoln to annex the Confederacy by force?
Where does it grant the President power to wage war without a declaration of war by congress?
Where did it give FDR the power to empanel extra SCOTUS justices when the seated ones wouldn't rule his way?
It seems there are a lot of things that Presidents may do without specific constitutional authority.
And at this point Michael should be shaking in his boots as he looks forward to that justice.
George W. Bush swore an oath to God to uphold the U.S. Constitution, the tenth Amendment to which states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Both Jeb and George are men of strong faith. I am certain that this must put them in a quandry. What do they do? Which oath do they keep?
Not trying to be glib, a friend said it was on CNN, but I don't have cable
My son is studying law enforcement, he wants to be a cop. I told him that I have always admired cops and admired the profession, and of course he knows that. But he should always understand that the day may come that he has to act in accordance to a higher law. He may have to resign, or he may have to take other action to preserve his conscience.
The cops who stand and prevent the family from bringing water into the room, the nurses and nurse aids who have obeyed orders not to help her, have soiled their consciences and will have to carry that to the grave.
If my son were to lend himself to this thing, I would not understand. I would be shamed.
Yes, in Seminole, Florida. He thought he should steal a gun and go save Terri. He doesn't understand that arms are insuffient to save her, and shouldn't be tried (that is an arrow that must remain in the quiver, reserved only for the saving of the Nation). Only the actions of the Legislative and Executive branches can, as the Judicial branch has failed its duty miserably. Neither seem to be inclined to do so, however, which is why some are considering using that arrow.
Terri will die, I don't think she can be saved after 7 days of no water (a testament to her will to LIVE, incidently). The question I ask is will the spirit of '76 die with her?
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.