Posted on 03/30/2005 6:44:50 PM PST by watchdog_writer
I have great respect for Ambassador Keyes, and for his acumen, but his article on World Net Daily suggesting that if Governor Bush does not call out the State Police, or I assume, also the National Guard to save Terri’s life, he is derelict in his duty. Ambassador Keys owes us a better argument than the practically off the cuff argument in his article. Ambassador Keyes is not alone in his harsh criticism of Governor Bush, but I am not with them in this.
When Governor Bush moved the legislature of Florida to pass Terri’s Law it did so in two days. Arguably the Governor had sufficient constitutional power without passing a special bill. Under Article IV, Section (8)(a) of the Constitution of Florida 1968, the Governor has the right to grant pardons, restore civil rights, as well as other executive powers. Florida courts have abstained from becoming involved in this admitted matter of executive grace. The action taken by Governor Bush pursuant to Terri’s Law simply guaranteed to Terri her constitutional rights. The bill did not change any law that applied to her case; nevertheless, judges declared Terri’s Law unconstitutional.
Terri’s case has given the pro-life advocates much to be angry about, but it was not Jeb Bush who decided to starve Terri that was Judge Greer. It was not Jeb Bush who stood in front of cameras and told the world, as Terri was being starved to death, that she looked peaceful and contented, that was George Felos, the same attorney that outlawyered Pamela Campbell. Jeb Bush was not the one who gave Ms. Campbell awards for being an outstanding attorney, that was the St. Petersburg Bar Association. It was not Jeb Bush that refused to give Terri a new trial that was the Federal Bench That the National Guard is not marching in Pinellas County has outraged pro-life advocates more than what they view as judicial tyranny.
The power of the courts to decide whether or not life support should be continued or discontinued does not result from any inherent power of the government to order such a result. The decision is not even one to be made by the surrogate of the incompetent, only the court can decide if the facts and circumstances of the case meet the judicial criteria set forth in prior decisions and statutes. It is now proper therefore for Governor Bush, regardless of his personal beliefs, not to order the feeding tubes to be reconnected after a court of competent jurisdiction has ordered their removal.
The fallacy of Ambassador Keyes’ argument is that he fails to honor the rule of law, and he disregards the fact that while we can question Judge Greer’s decision, his was a court of competent jurisdiction. The parties were given due process according to each and every judge who considered the case, although I believe that in such cases a jury should decide; and, yes the process was flawed, but the order was issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, and in my opinion, it would be executive tyranny for the Governor to mobilize the police power of the state to contravene a lawful order of the court, no matter how much he may disagree with the verdict.
The authority of the court to order the removal of the feeding tubes from Terri Marie was based upon the law in effect at the time of that decision, but when the State Legislature passed subsequent legislation, the judge’s decision was at that moment in time in conflict with the law. Courts in such situations often grant injunctions that require compliance by either affirmative action or non-action. In fact in Terri Marie’s case the court did issue an order to remove the tubes, and then later, in compliance with a duly enacted law, the tubes were reinserted in order to maintain the status quo, and to prevent irreparable harm.
Terri’s Law gave the Governor the clear statutory authority to order the tubes to be reconnected, in doing so Governor Bush did nothing more than any judge in the judicial branch would have the authority to do. He acted responsibly and compassionately by using his executive power to enforce legislation. It is his sworn duty to uphold the constitution of the State of Florida and the Laws of the State duly enacted by the Florida Legislature pursuant to their Constitutional authority.
When Governor Bush ordered the doctors to reconnect Terri to life sustaining nutrients, he did not act arbitrarily, nor did the Legislature grant some special power to the Governor. The Legislature responded, as they should have to a public outcry by changing the law. Courts do this very same thing every day of the year in every State and Federal court. Courts make law when they decide cases, and when the tide of public opinion changes, their decisions change.
We have seen the courts overturn decisions that violated the civil rights of innocent people powerless to defend themselves against ignorance and prejudice. The collective conscience of a free people is embodied in every branch of government. The legislature that defines it, the courts that explain it, and the executive that enforces it. When government responds to the will of the majority, filtered through moral elected representatives, guided by tradition, and protective of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the State and Federal Constitutions, there is no greater institution. May God comfort Terri Marie and her family, and God bless Governor Bush. He has done all that is within his power.
Maybe if he starts "doing" instead of "talking", we will be able to test your hypothesis.
The buck stops with a civilized people who should never stand for the barbaric starvation of an innocent human being under a false cloak of legalism. Did we not put Judge Greer into office? He sits in judgment because conservatives have failed to mobilize at the polls. I do not advocate revolution and bloodshed, I prefer the peaceful transition of power. VOTE JUDGE GREER OUT OF OFFICE. That is the American way. Do not compare us with the Third Reich, that is over the top.
Corrupt judges and courts have been ordering barbaric atrocities throughout history and they must be made to kneel to a higher moral law by the enraged people themselves. That would be the VOTERS! If only the voters knew what you know. It is our duty to inform them so that they can make good decisions. Do you think that a conservative pro-life judge would have made the same decision as Judge Greer? I think we would have had a much different result.
Why is it that some want to blame the judicial system? Are we not responsible for putting them into office? We have the ultimate power of the vote - use it!
My advice – less hysteria, and more political activism – put conservative pro-life judges in office.
I see what you mean. But does this not, in the end, rely on the Judiciary to police itself? The mechanisms you site are good evidence that the Judiciary has ample opportunity to correct self-error, but if the facts as they are being presented here are correct, it would seem that the primary focus of the judiciary is to dig in intransigently, and say "we ain't gonna, an you cain't make us". It is an arrogance that needs to be seen by the world.
Thanks for the critique. Am I further wrong here?
Employ? did you mean to say elect? Why do we have so many liberal legislators and judges? Answer - misinformed voters. Why are they misinformed? - MSM - NYTimes, Washington Post, Los Angles Times, Boston Globe, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, shall I continue are do you get the point?
Excellent reasoning; excellent writing! THANK YOU!
Sorry, I didn't post what he said. I do not advocate a militia. My solution was to vote conservative judges into office, vote Conservative pro-life legislators into office. Sorry for the confusion.
placemarker
as in "many will say Lord, Lord, but I will say I never knew you".
Maybe we need to re-draft the Constitution. It says that in life and death situations, the decisions are up to the state courts. They did that for a reason way back then. It was so no "King" could say..."off with your head".....as happened, as we know, so many times in England, even to some of their Queens.
However, our forefathers wanted to guard against such tyrany. So then, as per our Constitution, after a case is heard in the local Courts, it goes to appeals Courts, and then the Supreme Court.....
Obviously, along the way, something went drastically wrong. I'm sure it's not what our forefathers would have ever in their wildest dreams expected.
But it is the law of our land, and until it's changed, our elected officials have to abide by it.
In my opinion, we should change things with our votes, and get Conservative judges elected. I plan to work locally to make sure this happens.
Do you?
When one discusses checks and balances, that implies that one branch will assert superiority over another.
Governor pardons, legislature impeaches.
This case is a real problem for the judiciary, if the public comes to review the evidence and disagree with the conclusion (as I have). It's easy (natural) for the media to confuse the facts and the public, but this case is pretty compelling on the surface, to lots of observers. It has staying power in the media, and will be discussed.
What is apt to occur is a serious diminution of respect for the judiciary. THe judiciary holds itself out as being "for justice," and if is popularly viewed as perpetrating a systematic failure (not just at one court, but across several; not just with money, but with a person's life), it will lose power. Power depend on the consent of the judged, too.
Lawyers will dicker over the legal tools to fix the proble (e.g., there was a big rearrangemnt of "insanity" after Hinkley got off on that defense), and will come up with an imperfect solution.
In the legal sense, this one is tough partly because it is life/death in a civil setting; and civil courts are not equipped to deal with stakes that high. Too bad they won't admit it.
Off the top of my head: Augustine, Aquinas, Acts of the Apostles (Peter), Leo XIII, Pius XI, Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Vatican II (Gaudium et Spes), the Nuremberg Tribunal, the Declaration of Independence. Will send more.
"We just just ain't got anyone with balls enough to do it."
Ahhhhhhhhhh now I understand . . . this is just a testosterone-induced 'my appendage is bigger than your appendage' debate -- rationallity and rule of law be damned!
Great rant, well stated. I'm with you on this.
let's choose conservative pro-life legislators like Rick Santorum Voters gave President Bush a clear victory in Tuesday's elections, but they also sent a handful of new pro-life lawmakers to the U.S. Senate. As a result, they helped shore up the votes the president will need to confirm new judges to federal courts -- including the ever-important Supreme Court.
Well, the Nuremberg Tribunal didn't just talk religion and philosophy. They executed people.
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.