Posted on 03/28/2005 12:06:15 PM PST by Keyes2000mt
We've repeatedly heard the phrase "the rule of law" used to defend the killing of Terri Schiavo. The media and politicians tell us that whenever a judge rules, it's the job of the people to shut up and obey the court order. The legislature and the executive can do nothing once the court has spoken. Judges have the final word on every matter.
Is that what the rule of law really means?
The rule of law is a tradition born of the excesses of thousands of years of the rule of man. Kings, chiefs, and priests had absolute authority to act on their own whims and they could punish and kill individuals whenever they wanted. The rule of law means that we're governed by the written law, not the wishes of men.
The problem with the Schiavo case and the rulings of many of our courts today is that they are about the rule of judges and not the rule of law. The prevailing view of legal interpretation says that we have a "living constitution." This doctrine means that the courts can reinterpret the Constitution as they see the need.
Thus, the plain language of the Constitution or a law is ignored, as judges peer into the Constitution like a crystal ball, looking for new rights to declare and to find how old ones can be done away with or restricted. Thus, while courts are expanding special rights for homosexuals, they've recently authorized restrictions on freedom of political speech before an election. We've had courts overturn US laws based on the rulings of foreign judges and treaties we've never signed or ratified.
In the Schiavo case, the Florida judge ignored the subpoena of Congress for Terri Schiavo and the federal courts ignored a law that required them to do a complete fresh review of the case. What we saw was the rule of judges. The rule of law was disregarded.
Most judges have been absolutely corrupted by the absolute power they've granted themselves. The Bible tells us that all authority is given from above, but there's more authority than that of judges.
Our legislators have the ability to impeach lawless judges. Our governors and our President holds the executive power to stop encroachments by the judiciary by refusing unlawful orders. They swear an oath before God to defend and protect the Constitution, in effect to protect the rights of citizens, not to mindlessly obey the judiciary.
Courts should not be defied merely because we disagree with their rulings, but when a court shows a pattern of ignoring the law and the rights of citizens, they must be stopped. If judges continue to make up the law as they go along, our rights and our very lives will forever be subject to their ever changing moods, as they insist on compliance with their orders in the name of the rule of law.
Exactly. The law isn't what a judge makes up as he goes along. Just because a judge says something doesn't make it legal.
I'm sick of the cowards who hide behind Judge Greer's words...
Amen!
LORD DENMAN, (in C.J. O'Connel v. R. ,1884): "Every jury in the land is tampered with and falsely instructed by the judge when it is told it must take (or accept) as the law that which has been given to them, or that they must bring in a certain verdict, or that they can decide only the facts of the case."
A judges robe is most definately a license to steal, and in this case a license to murder.
Laws are meant to provide justice. Everyone recognizes that they do so imperfectly, but it is the best we can do.
There are many checks in the law to prevent an injustice from being done. For example, a person convicted and sentenced by the judiciary can be pardoned by the executive.
Terri's case falls into a place where many feel a grave injustice is being done, but the law has provided no way to correct it. A case where a person is being unjusticely killed is one of the most extreme cases, if not the most extreme case, where an injustice can happen. This is not a common everyday event.
For the executive to step in and stop the killing of Terri is the exception to the rule of law, taken under the most extreme and rare of cases, and it is taken to save a life, not to take a life, or provide some benefit in an unjust manner. If the executive were to abuse such a power, what are the likely penalties? Impeachment by the legislature, or a recall election in some states, or not being re-elected in the next election. Are these not sufficient checks, both on the judiciary and the executive?
Federalist 78 by Alexander Hamilton (one of the drafters of the U.S. Constitution) makes it plain that the Judiciary can only exercise judgment, and is powerless to execute its judgments without the support of the Executive Branch.
Gov. Bush has the authority to remove Terri, but he is not exercising it because he fears the fallout.
It all depends which side you are on.
The judge's decision has been upheld by the Supreme Court five times.
I disagree, the laws are made by the legislature,that's the way it was designed, to have the lawmakers be the group most accountable to the people. For the legislature to make unmake or change a law is perfectly in keeping the "rule of law" For the judiciary to make or change law is NOT. The mandate is only to clarify ambiguities not legislate
Judging by these quotes (some direct supreme court opinions) judges were never indended to be much more than mediators in our courtrooms. http://www.levellers.org/jrp/orig/jrp.jurquotes.htm
Granted a jury didn't play a part in the Schiavo case but it could have and it should have. A jury would have likely found the law to be guilty and tossed it aside.
Our not knowing the facts has handed the scepter of power to the judiciary who feel ever more comfortable waving it around.
So let's take her life to keep from pissing Mikey off? What pathetic "logic"...
That doesn't make it RIGHT!
The lesson in all this is not to trust your fate to the legal system, medical system, political system -- and certainly not the media, if one wants a rational outcome. It means a need for greater self-sufficiency and self-reliance, which begins of course, by making better discriminations and decisions.
Generally, it is not a good idea to marry the first and only person one ever dates. And then when the marriage goes bad, it's not a waste of the years put into it, to get out of it, at whatever cost, or it could cost you your life. There are no guarantees of a happy outcome -- no matter what the demagogues promise. We all take our best shot and make the best from what we know.
Let her will to live, inspire us to make the most of our own lives.
How can anyone watch these instances of courts overruling each other and claim justice with a straight face. The law is screwed up and lawyers make money off the confusion. The client and public gets screwed.
Me TOO!! great article!!
In Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia (1831), the Supreme Court refused to hear the case on the basis that the Cherokee Nation did not represent a sovereign nation. However, in the case of Worcester vs. Georgia (1832) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee. The Supreme Court this time ruled that the Cherokee Nation was sovereign thus making the removal laws invalid. The decision, rendered by Justice John Marshall, declared the forced removal of the Cherokee Nation to be illegal, unconstitutional and against treaties made.
President Andrew Jackson, who had the executive responsibility of enforcement of the laws, stated, "John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can.
The republic survived this clash and Jackson's portrait still graces the $20 bill.
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.