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.
You should be ashamed of yourself taunting people towards armed insurrection.
Forida Constitution. Article One, Section Two. The fundamental law of the State of Florida.
And ordering that an innocent citizen be killed by thirst and starvation is not a 'legal court order'. It is as illegal and lawless as any court order could possibly be.
Who said anything about armed insurrection? Are you armed with food and water? I'm not talking shoot out. I'm talking unarmed with nothing but food and water for a starving lady. You people of principal had no principals. Just like my buddy Dave from Ohio. You probably met him. Blue ball cap with a cross on it. Did the staged arrest thing with about 10 others. It was simply a show.
Note that when the DCFS moved to take advantage of the provision in Florida law that the filing of an appeal to a court order automatically freezes the order... El Presidente Greer's Banana Republik Army basically thumbed their nose and said they didn't care.
For your edification, if you haven't seen it.
Okay Yoda. Since you have no argument I will not bother discussing the case with you. The statements are in the court records, they are in the Wolfson report, believe whatever you choose. Frankly I don't care. But when you advocate the national government as the final judge in a situation like this versus the family, no matter how despicable one of the participants may be, you are no longer conservative but a supporter of more intrusive government. Makes you a good Republican though...
Great summary, Nick.
The Judge is now His Majesty. We are no longer a Republic -- but a Realm of King-Judges who by their word alone can order a person's death.
My conscience is clear in this matter.
Getting arrested as an act of symbolism is not my bag.
But I have great respect for those who decided that this was what their conscience dictated.
Judge Greer's order is an illegal order -- it orders a murder. There is a duty to stop it and to refuse to carry it out -- THAT was settled at Nuremberg.
The Bill of Rights delineates God-given unalienable rights.
God gave them, and no man, even in a black robe, can rightfully take them away.
Life is the foremost of those rights, for without that right, all other rights are moot.
Your claim that this is somehow a usurpation by the federal government is specious and silly.
Amen.
Gotta go....keep the faith and keep up the fight.
She's not dead yet.
For someone who 'wanted to die', she sure wants to live...
Well that being the case, we should cease all resistance. That way we can blame the Liberals.
Yes -- the fact that she survives and has survived all the three known attempts to murder her is prima facie evidence of a will to life. Even Daniel in the ovens and such wasn't tested as much.
WE're not privy to all the court documents. Some may not realize that George Felos pursued the court issue in Browning even after she died.
His most recent quote
"The guardian has no discretion," said Felos. "It is not the guardian's decision to do this. It must be done because it is the order of this court."
http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2005/3/17/74856.html
He is going to use this as precedent if my guess is correct.
Still waiting for a simple answer from someone, as to whether or not they think that if it was GW's or Jeb's daughter (same exact situation now), do they believe that either one of them would be taking the same stance?
Also would be nice to hear from some, if they would also take this same position if it was THEIR daughter.
It's really such a basic question, and your honesty would be most appreciated, regardless.
That is a statement of what I perceive the course of action that would follow not a resignation of defeat as you indicate by cropping the sentence out of the context it was written in.
Just read my tagline....
I give up - you people are too dense to get it.
You don't care about the law - all you want is for Jeb to do your bidding and because he prefers to uphold the law instead of break it - you are throwing your little hissy fits.
Enough already! Arguing with people who don't want to know the truth is a waste of time.
It shouldn't be. You support standing on principal. You didn't. You support doing what's right no matter the consequence. No......again you didn't. There's alot of talk, but little action. You had the opportunity to make a difference. All it takes is one person. One person to really make the attempt to get a starving lady food and water. You chose not to be that one person. You were ready, you aimed, but you didn't pull the trigger to feed a starving women who in your world is the beginning of the genocide of the helpless.
Sorry, your conscience shouldn't be clear.
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.