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.
Of course, separate issue.
Your equation of taking innocent people's property with taking someone's life is ridiculous on the face of it.
You can compensate someone for lost property, but you'll find it hard to do so for someone who's life you've stolen.
You'll have to take this up with someone else. I have to go.
One last word, though: the way you are straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel would make me guess you are an attorney. If you're not, you certainly have the temperament for one in this culture.
It was not overstepping.
The reason it isn't is because FL law says that within 24 hours, the court has the right to rule whether or not the DCF has sufficient evidence to remove someone. So .. Judge Greer jumped the gun a little .. because he found out what they were going to do and he ruled they couldn't.
While I don't agree with his ruling .. he was within his right to do it - there was NO OVERSTEPPING involved.
I wish people would find out what they're talking about before they go sreading false statements!
The guardian fishing is one of the best examples of how the deck was stacked."
I'm not sure who the they refers to but I suppose that had the court done a full review as had been requested/ordered by Congress (not that I was in favor of Congressional involvement), what could it possibly have hurt? As for myself, I would have erred on the side of life and optimisim, however unrealistic my expectations.
Yeah, there is. Not many people living in America believe in our constitutional republican form of government.
To: Hildy; Howlin; sinkspurTo anyone who cares,
I have left the GOP, pending the Governor of Florida and/or the President the United States acting according to their sworn oaths to uphold our constitutions and innocent human life by simply giving Terri Schiavo a drink of water.
I hope and pray fervently that the Governor and/or the President and their political advisors make my decision moot by acting to save this dying American citizen today.
Those who won't act to prevent a murder in progress, when they have the power to do so, deserves no patriotic American's political support ever again.
Feel free to pass this news along to anyone in any way you feel would be appropriate.
Thomas C. Hoefling
Former National Political Director for Dr. Alan Keyes
761 posted on 03/26/2005 3:57:06 PM EST by EternalVigilance ("I thirst.")
To: Canticle_of_DeborahBottom line?
They hate God...
18 posted on 03/27/2005 2:12:01 AM EST by EternalVigilance ("I thirst.")
I'd assume the Judge at Schiavo and Felos request.
PKM, I usually agree with you, but not now. Conservatives expect their leaders to lead...that's why we elect them.
It's a sad day when a Republican governor of the state of Florida, and his Republican brother, the President of the United States, cannot find the will or the means to rescue an innocent US citizen from a horrible state-sanctioned death.
Perhaps we need a third party.
Those are my words, which I stand by...and will forever.
And what would your problem be with that?
I'm sorry you have to go, but I'm not equating the two: you are, because it is convenient for your argument.
I'm saying that you are wrong: due process rights are not just for criminals, and section 2 doesn't apply "only to the innocent." I used a taking of property to illustrate why your two arguments don't hold up.
I have sympathy for Terri, and if I were voting, I'd vote that she be kept alive. But that doesn't mean I can manipulate the constitution to get to that result.
You cannot pick and choose laws and regulations to INSERT into a case which has already been adjudicated, and then say it gives authority where none exists.
If this law was going to be used - it needed to be used in the very first trial - which was the suit Michael brought against the hospital regarding Terri's alleged misdiagnosis. Because it did not get INSERTED then - it's too late. Why people continue to beat this drum is beyond me.
If you don't like these laws - it's up to FL residents to get off their blessed assurance and get the laws changed. Jeb Bush does NOT WRITE LAWS. Blaming him is useless energy.
I don't know what GOD you serve, but MY GOD does not make me "suffer". That's like saying GOD breaks your arm to get your attention. Garbage!!
Would you break your child's arm to get your child's attention ..?? I don't think so (unless you're some sicko). Well .. neither does MY FATHER GOD. He doesn't cause accidents, he doesn't cause afflictions.
Terri is suffering because MAN has decided she doesn't have the right to live.
As if the GOP's dereliction of duty regarding the undefended Mexican/American border wasn't disgusting enough.
The GOP has been hijacked by globalist-RINOs who care only about expanding and extending their own POWER.
"By the people FOR the people"??
Bury it at Arlington.
"She's a LESBIAN, you know."
And this is pertinent to the conversation because .....???
Go to reply #5 for a formatted version with paragraphs.
No, the state can only take life, liberty or property from the GUILTY and only after due process.
What is crime Terri GUILTY of?
Oh, is that right? You mean the state can't come and kick you out of your house and bulldoze it to make way for a highway or a school or a courthouse?
Please name the law Gov. Bush would be violating by taking custody of Terri through DCF. I've asked three people already who make this ridiculous law-breaking argument and have yet to get one response. Name the law and cite the text, please.
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.