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.
Right. It was decided in a meeting betweetn those pillors of virtue, Randall Terry, Alan Keyes, and Larry Klayman.
Well, someone sorta is...
And that's why hundreds of disabled folks have showed up in front of the hospice. They're scared to death about where ignoring the Fifth Amendment (US) and Section Two (FL) is leading us.
The lives of our citizens who are disabled are being devalued, even to the point of revoking thier right to live.
When Jeb Bush asked the Thomas More Law Center if he had the authority to prevent Terri Schiavo's death in 2003, they agreed with Alan Keyes and stated that he does have the authority. Jeb Bush chose to ignore the center's legal opinion then and he chooses to ignore their reaffirmation of that opinion now.
Prosecutor Reaffirms Governor's Authority Under State Criminal Laws to Prevent Death of Schiavo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1371592/posts
Jeb Bush gave away his authority as governor to a rogue Circuit Court Judge who has violated Terri's rights as a human being in motion after motion. Judge Greer has refused to consider information that would save Terri's life. He is not following the current law, which states you must have a living will. Instead, he allowed hearsay evidence by the husband-in-name-only and refuses to consider evidence that helps Terri.
He did; he quit the GOP.
There are alot of appointed or adminstrative positions that he would be very good at doing. He is awful, just awful, at politicking and his moralizing can be devisive and even outright mean.
The idea that the local police would have resisted even one state trooper with an order from the Governor is ludicrous disinformation.
Any one who believes it is naive in the extreme.
Never think there is no solution. As one door closes, a window is opened. Never ever given up hope or think there is no solutions. I'm sure there was a time that slaves felt the same way.
Oh, be serious.
You post an article written by someone (in this case, Keyes, apparently), then you stand back to attack people who don't agree with you.
The ones you do agree with, you give a simple pat on the back.
The ones who actually take the time to provide comments that address and factually straighten out the *mistakes* in the writings by Keyes, you ignore.
Just like Alan, which is why you and he see eye to eye.
But that's alright. He has a right to his opinion of Jeb, just as I have a right to my opinion of Keyes.
But see, thats where we differ.
Keyes doesnt like people having an opinion of him or his views that he doesn't like.
Sort of hypocritic, I think.
Have a nice day, say hi to the family for me.
p.s. Hows his daughter doing?
I can understand people, and I myself think Terri should be kept alive and what is being done is wrong, but to blame Jeb for this is screwy.
No, of course not, he was ill. But my point is that I don't wish for Terri to suffer a long time. While I understand the desire for something to change for the sake of her family and the legal/moral/ethical issue at stake, I don't want her to suffer a long time if it is clear nothing is actually going to change in time to help her. And I can't understand the rhetoric I've heard from some on tv who say that they hope she lingers a very long time to keep this in the public eye and to make the point that this is wrong. It's as though they want her to suffer more not less for the sake of the issue, and I cannot agree with that.
"Jeb said he was going to move in with the DFC. Then he didn't. Then he did, but he didn't send enough force to get the job done. And then he said he'd done all he could."
I'm really stunned by your statement.
What is it about the rule of law that people don't understand. JEB COULDN'T - THERE WAS A COURT ORDER FROM JUDGE GREER STOPPING HIM. And .. I believe that the Gov was told that if he came there with marshals - against the COURT ORDER FROM JUDGE GREER - to try to get Terri - he would be stopped.
This damn county is so corrupt - they would allow their officers to be killed in a shootout - TO PROVE WHAT ..??
BEING THE "SUPREME AUTHORITY" OF THE STATE DOES NOT MEAN YOU GET TO SUBVERT THE LAWS OF THE STATE - quite the contrary - the Governor put his hand on a Bible and SWORE TO UPHOLD THE LAWS OF THE STATE.
Now .. here is Alan Keys saying the Gov has authority to subvert the laws of government agencies - that is just blatantly false.
Jeb didn't "blow it". Jeb did all the law would allow him to do.
I saw him say that, but I think he was lying. Just like he lied when he said Terri made no sound during the time when the feeding tube was removed.
Isn't it interesting that there isn't any cogent argument with the article, only attacks on Alan...
By now, they probably have forgotten that there was an article, even if they read it, which I doubt.
Sure worked at Nuremburgh. < /sarcasm>
Yes, because he tells it like it is, he doesn't care who gets offended, and he never, never compromises. Not good traits for a politician. Excellent for a Statesman.
One of which is their sworn duty to enforce Section Two, which is quite specific, and which doesn't even exist if you listen to any of the governmental branches right now.
It functionally doesn't exist..."
I'm looking at the Florida State Constitution now. It seems to be broken down into articles and then sections...but can't find any section 2's that seem applicable...with the possible exception of Article I below:
SECTION 2. Basic rights.--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, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.
Is this what you had in mind; if not, please post.
One of which is their sworn duty to enforce Section Two, which is quite specific, and which doesn't even exist if you listen to any of the governmental branches right now.
It functionally doesn't exist..."
I'm looking at the Florida State Constitution now. It seems to be broken down into articles and then sections...but can't find any section 2's that seem applicable...with the possible exception of Article I below:
SECTION 2. Basic rights.--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, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.
Is this what you had in mind; if not, please post.
Sorry you have bought into the completely destructive myth of judicial supremecy.
It is bringing our republic down to the ground.
We are already to the point of killing handicapped people.
The road ahead won't be a pretty one.
Actually, no.
In this case the decision was made by the government.
The directive to remove the feeding tube and withold any other sustenance is from the judge. The ruling was not that Schiavo is free to decide, it is that it take place on government's order.
If Schiavo changed his mind and decided he wanted to put the tube back in he would have to legally get permission.
So, your assessment is incorrect.
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.