While your reply was garbled in transmission you seem to believe I am not likely to consider what you say. All I want is a hint as to the authority of a president to get involved in matters like this. Just a hint.
"While your reply was garbled in transmission you seem to believe I am not likely to consider what you say. All I want is a hint as to the authority of a president to get involved in matters like this. Just a hint."
There are several legal bases on which the President can intervene.
First of all, Federal Law may be being violated. Specifically, Terri Schiavo has rights under the Constitution of which she is in danger of being denied. Specifically, there are broad questions of due process of law and possible judicial abuse.
Whenever a person is murdered or assaulted, there is state law claim, but there is also potentially a federal law claim for a civil rights violation. Terry Schiavo is a disabled American and there are troubling questions concerning due process in her trial. President Bush is the Chief Law Enforcement officer in the nation, and due process rights and disabled persons' rights are not just state law issues, but also Federal.
That is one ground.
A second ground, which highlights the due process problems highlighted above, is that Congress issued subpoenas. No Federal court quashed those subpoenas. I have heard lots of people screaming that Congress has no "right" to (a) pass individual legislation, (b) use such legislation to establish specific appellate jurisdiction in a case, and (c) issue subpoenas on such a matter, but all of those arguments are pure ideological piffle. In fact, Congress DOES have the power to pass individual legislation, and the Congressional Record is chock full of such acts for over 200 years. Congress DOES have the power, right there in the Constitution, to establish the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Courts. And Congress most certainly DOES have the power to issue subpoenas.
It is arguable that a FEDERAL Court has the power to reverse any such Congressional law, or the quash such subpoenas, but crucially THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. No Federal Court has overturned the special jurisdiction law requiring the Federal Courts to review the Schiavo case.
And no Federal Court has attempted to quash the Congressional subpoenas.
Now, again, folks are screaming like agony aunts that Congress has no RIGHT to do any of these things, but the Judiciary does not agree, two centuries of precedent don't agree, and even the text of the Constitution itself doesn't agree. What Congress did was legal, including issuing the subpoenas.
A STATE Judge in Florida IGNORED a Federal Congressional subpoena, and instructed all concerned parties in Florida to ignore those Federal subpoenas. Now, once again, we need only look to the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. States Righters may scream that we live in a Confederacy, but the Constitution does NOT say that. The Constitution says that Federal Law is universally superior to State law. So, IF a Federal act is constitutional in the first place, it automatically overrides ANY contrary state law or act. STATE officials, including judges, have absolutely no legal power or authority to override FEDERAL directives. That is not legally debatable. FEDERAL Judges do. State judges do NOT. Ever. Under any circumstances. The Supremacy Clause is not some strange new act. The Founders wrote it into the Constitution in 1787. We have a government of limited powers, yes, but WHERE the Federal government has power, it's power is absolutely supreme over contrary state law. The Constitution has ALWAYS said that, and always been interpreted that way too.
This is not a debatable point.
A FEDERAL Court can decide that Congress has overreached, but no STATE court can. John Calhoun said that there was a doctrine of "Nullification", but there is no such doctrine. States cannot nullify Federal acts. Federal courts, and not State courts, determine if Federal acts are constitutional and legal. No Federal court quashed Congress' subpoenas. Therefore, they are binding federal acts.
Judge Greer in Florida overrode Congressional subpoenas.
Illegally.
The President of the United States has the authority to use Federal power to enforce the supremacy of Federal law over defiant acts of state officials, including state judges, at least unless a Federal court says otherwise.
Congress alone CANNOT enforce its subpoenas or its contempt rulings. Only the Executive has the power to do that.
There's three separate and independent grounds:
violation of constitutional rights of due process,
violation of the Federal rights of a disabled person under highly questionable circumstances, and
violation of Federal subpoenas by state officials.
To this, I would add a fourth.
Congress passed a law extending specific jurisdiction to the Federal Courts to do a de novo review of the Schiavo Case.
Whatever one thinks of the law, no Federal court struck down the law, therefore, the law IS Constitutional, as a matter of law. People may think Congress had no "right" to pass such a law, but Constitutionally, it certainly has the POWER to do so, and no Federal court said otherwise.
However, the Federal Judges did NOT comply with the law. They subverted it. Rather than giving a de novo review of the facts for consideration of an injuction, they deferred to the state judge on the facts and looked merely to procedural matters. They did not overrule Congress' law, which means they agreed that the law WAS Constitutional. But then they VIOLATED the law that, by their own failure to strike they admitted was Constitutional, by not obeying its terms.
When Federal officials violate Federal law and irreparable harm is about to be done thereby, the President has the authority to step in and prevent the harm from taking place. The President CANNOT remove the judges, but he most certainly has the authority to prevent judges (or any other public officials) from breaking the Federal law.
Those are four separate grounds on which the President could act.
There are others, but you said you wanted a hint.
The arguments against these acts are not legal but ideological: the President SHOULD not do this, or SHOULD not do that.
My counter is that the President has the legal authority to act, on Federal grounds, and when one balances the equities, he absolutely SHOULD act.
Of course, my true opinion is that the Federal Judges should have obeyed the law and given the de novo review in the first place. That would have resulted in a temporary restraining order while a different set of eyes studied the problem.