Posted on 03/29/2005 11:00:33 AM PST by EternalVigilance
Posted: March 29, 2005 11:44 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The Florida state constitution declares unequivocally that in the state of Florida "the supreme executive power shall be vested in a governor … ." The word supreme means highest in authority. There can be no executive authority in the state of Florida higher than the governor. No state law can create an executive authority higher than highest in the Florida constitution. Therefore no court order based upon such a law can constitutionally create such an authority.
If the governor tells the local police in Pinellas County to step aside, they must do so, or else be arrested and tried for an assault on the government of the state, which is to say insurrection.
(If Gov. Jeb Bush fears that for some reason they would question the authority of his representatives, then he should take the necessary law enforcement officials to Tampa in person, thus making the situation crystal clear.)
Since Florida's highest law grants him supreme executive power, the governor's action would be lawful. No one in the Florida judiciary can say otherwise, since the whole basis for the doctrine of judicial review (which they invoked when they refused to apply "Terri's law") is that any law at variance with the constitution is no law at all.
Gov. Bush has said that he recognizes the injustice being done to Terri Schiavo but is powerless to stop it. He is obviously not powerless, and his view of injustice is fully warranted.
The Florida state constitution declares: "All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty … ."
The word "inalienable" means that the rights in question cannot be given away or transferred to another by law. Now, by allowing Michael Schiavo to starve his wife to death, Judge George W. Greer transfers to Schiavo the exercise of her right to life, doing on her behalf what the Florida state constitution declares she herself could not do (since an inalienable right cannot be given away).
Schiavo's decision, and any element of the law it is based on that has the same effect, are therefore unconstitutional on the face of it.
The governor of Florida cannot be obliged to enforce unconstitutional edicts, nor can he be faulted for acting to stop an evident violation of the constitution. In his oath as governor he swore to "support, protect and defend the Constitution and government of the United States and of the state of Florida."
As supreme executive, he is obliged to act in their defense, and no court order can relieve him of this responsibility.
Any order by Judge Greer that seeks to prevent him from doing his sworn duty, as he sees fit, is invalid, and any attempt by the judge to incite armed forces to enforce his order would be an act of judicial insurrection against the constitution and government of Florida.
The judge may have whatever opinion he pleases, but when he attempts to use force to back it up, he breaks the law, going against the constitution of the state, which is to say against the supreme law in Florida.
In Federalist 81, when Alexander Hamilton lists the safeguards against "judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority," he cites in particular "its total incapacity to support its usurpations by force."
Accepting the notion that judicial orders at any level may constitute an executive power superior to the chief executive would give the judiciary just such a forceful capacity.
When every judicial decision carries the implied threat of armed insurrection, a key safeguard of liberty and self-government is removed. If any state governor, or the president of the United States acts so as to encourage the judiciary to assume such executive power, or the people to believe that it may constitutionally do so, he undermines the integrity of all our constitutions, and of American self-government as a whole.
This constitutes a grave dereliction of duty and would in saner times clearly be grounds for his impeachment by a legislature intent on defending the Florida constitution against "judiciary encroachments."
By God's grace, however, Terri Schiavo still lives, and Gov. Bush may yet act to redeem himself and his constitutional authority. Courageous action would be an act of statesmanship, defending the integrity of our constitutional system and the ultimate sovereignty of the people.
We have long been awaiting the statesman who could turn a crisis into such healing. Like Ronald Reagan before him, Jeb Bush could prove himself such a man. For Terri's sake and for the sake of constitutional self-government in America, he should act now. For failure to do so, he has no excuse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be sure to visit Alan Keyes' communications center for founding principles, The Declaration Foundation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Reagan administration official Alan Keyes, was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Social and Economic Council and 2000 Republican presidential candidate.
agreed
Now THAT'S standing on principle.
Seems many expect Jeb to rule like the King form his Gov. seat and that isn't possible.
I believe that is correct from what I've read about DCF's rules.
I'm quite confident if Jeb had known of that 3 hours - he would have taken advantage of it.
Where do sheriffs get their authority? Is it independent of the Governor? They are generally elected by the people in a county.
I noticed that a long time ago about him.
B.S.
'Due process' refers to a trial for a charged criminal, not what Terri has gone through, sans any legal representation of her own.
Nobody ever said Bush was planning on deploying troops. If Alan Keyes wants a Governor to send troops to take over a private hospice in violation of a court order, I don't agree with that. That's too much like Janet Reno.
No, we just want him be a man.
A good question, a very good question. One, I doubt the legislature and the governor will want to discuss.
Two state troopers would be sufficient.
"citizens who are disabled are being devalued, even to the point of revoking their right to live"
And .. of course the Bush brothers are totally to blame for all of this ..?? I get it!!
Hmmmm? I seem to recall it was JUDGE GREER who ordered Terri to be starved to death.
If it means something other than the clear meaning of its words, according to our political class, then all of our founding documents, the basic law of our land, are worthless pieces of paper, and the American Republic is dead."
Legal scholars (of which I am certainly not one) often agonize over the meaning of a particular word. let alone a particular law. While I think I know what "defend life and liberty" means, wouldn't it depend upon the definition of life...and defend? Is it conscious life as we understand it, or would the mere existence of unconscious protoplasm qualify? Would defend include violating God knows how many court orders, or perhaps armed conflict between competing Law Enforcement entities?
Please don't misunderstand me; were it up to me, I would have appointed a Guardian Ad Litem to act on Terri's behalf a long time ago, and to insure that all requisite medical tests were made to determine her true physical condition, and to ensure that those currently representing her had no hidden agendas.
Sadly as it stands, these tests will only be made during an autopsy after the fact, when it will be too little too late.
That does not address whether or not the Governor had the authority to remove her.
If the Governor has the authority, then the sheriff is obligated to defer and even aid in her removal.
If there were some sort of altercation if the Governor had sent people to remove her, why would it be the Governor who caused it and not the others who resisted?
No they wouldn't. The local police said they only cared about the court order.
Perhaps you haven't read the decision from the court? What am I saying? Of course you haven't. The judge was asked to review a law that clearly stated what was to be done. He reviewed it and apparently didn't disagree with it. That wasn't 'government directed' no matter how much you faux conservatives wish it to be. That was upholding a current law. That's what courts tend to do within our system of government.
You support the government making that life and death decision.
Hey I'm not the one advocating taking the power out of the hands of the government and handing it over to a group of political hacks, most of whom don't have medical degrees, that know better than us all apparently
I see you don't really have intellectual honesty or integrity. You do acknowledge the right of the government and acquiesce to the power of the state to make decisions in a personal life.
Yep that's me. Dishonest and full of it. For allowing the guardian, no matter how much I think he may be a total sh*t, for making the decision of when or when not to disconnect the tube instead of the 435 'wise men' in Washington DC
That's true. He saves his pandering for a most uncommon denominator.
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.