Posted on 03/31/2005 8:05:44 AM PST by Pyro7480
President Bush will make remarks on the death of Terri Schindler (Schiavo) at 11:40 am EST.
In Andrew Jackson's day, the courts passed some law (I forget the details) that Jackson didn't want. He said, "great, they've had their say, now let them enforce it."
That was the "Trail of Tears" law. The Governor of Georgia illegally seized Cherokee land and expelled them to Oklahoma. The Cherokees took it to the Supreme Court and they won. Jackson issued his famous statement and did not interfere in the matter. It is the only time in U.S. history that that has ever happened. Are you saying that it is legal for a state to seize your land and hand it over to someone else?
If Florida's constitution is made up the same way, Jeb Bush should have just called the police and said, "stand down".
No he couldn't have. The police there were municipal police under the control of the mayor. The governor is not their boss.
I'm not sure Pres. Bush had the authority (states rights issues), but I do believe Gov. Bush probably did.
The President did not have any authority to act. The Governor's actions were similarly constrained by the state constitution. He issued his executive order and it was declared "unconstitutional" by the courts.
So you're saying that Abraham Lincoln should have been impeached for effectively usurping power from Congress during the Civil War?
What is power, anyway? I mean - really. What is power?
Finally some sanity. That would have been the best path to a successful resolution of the matter and might have ended up saving Terri.
I bet he wishes he'd never signed it in the first place.
That I don't doubt.
Are you claiming living wills are in contradiction to the Constitution? All I said is the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I said nothing about living wills.
Setting aside that red herring, if there is anything to learn from the Terri Schaivo tragedy in relation to living wills, it is this: since Terri had no written directives, and was ordered to death, therefore, when we are unable to speak for ourselves, we are presumed to WANT TO DIE, unless we wrote on a piece of paper that we want to live.
Quite backwards, if you ask me. And frightening.
How many times do I have to explain it to you?
All he had to do was invoke the Fifth Amendment, save Terri, and he would have set the judicial supremacists back ten years in their quest to become the dictators of America.
Instead, he has given them a great victory and advanced their cause for them.
With friends like this, who needs enemies...
You will get neither, but since you insist.
There were no plans to defend the Philippines in the event of a war with japan. The plan was to withdraw to Bataan and hang on until help could arrive. MacArthur(one of my hero's) was appointed by the Philippines (retired from USArmy) to lead and train a Philippines Army. Mac Author felt and argued that the Philippines could be defended and when the Japanese attacked MacArthur instead of withdrawing to Bataan as the plan called for engaged the enemy on the beach. It was a disaster and his forces were routed. He then was brilliant in his withdraw to Bataan but he lost most of the supplies that were to hold him over until help could arrive.
meanwhile back in Washington D.C. A debate raged, which front should receive the men and material's needed to successfully engage the enemy, in 42 both was not possible. It was decided that Germany should be dealt with first and that the US Army should make war with Germany it's first priority.
Also the US Navy said they could not supply Bataan, they could not break the Japanese blockade.
How then do you see the equivalence?
So you would have wanted President Bush and Governor Bush to have intervened and then been impeached? Do you want the Democrats (the party of death) in power for the next 20 years?
Apt description. I'll have to borrow that.
I further believe that both good and evil can only be manifest in this world through the actions and inactions of people and that justice can only be certain in the next.
Other than posting on this forum what did you do? What actions did you take?
Do you think the Florida Legislature or the U.S. Congress would have even passed articles of impeachment, much less hold a trial in the respective Senates? I doubt any trial would have been held.
U.S. ConstitutionArticle. II.
Section. 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
What law, specifically, allows him to act in tandem with the U.S. Congress, to tell the courts their jurisdiction?
U.S. ConstitutionArticle. I.
Section 8
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Article II
Section 2
...but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Article III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 1.
Article. IV.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
What law, specifically, grants him powers above his Constitutionally-limited power?
Those are his Constitutional powers in concert with Congress. The judiciary refused to recognize them and even made the public statement, through Judge Whittemore, that those powers don't exist. The response to that was silence.
Maybe Congress should stop acting like the Dems are in power.
Yes, he is. He is the top law enforcement officer in the State of Florida.
The President did not have any authority to act.
Yes, he did. He is the chief law enforcement officer in the United States of America.
Both had the sworn duty to uphold the clear protections afforded to the lives of innocent citizens by the national and state constitutions.
Those protections are now moot, since our legal and political class have decided to completely ignore them.
They won't even talk about it, just as you and those who argue as you do won't talk about it.
Unalienable rights are now being alienated by our own government. God help us...
You're stretching it to the point of absurdity. Both legislatures are republican and were working in concert with the executive to save Terri. In a different case, if the executive power was exercised against the will of the legislature, they would have the ability to impeach.
Neither does the Fifth Amendment, according to y'all.
The leader of the free world has a slightly different mandate than you and me working our 9-5 jobs. I don't see you writing out a check to lower the budget deficit.
No, but his opinions constitute the definition of the term the Founding Fathers used. Think of the quote as a dictionary to help describe a term in the context it was used by the Founders.
I heard about this but understood that the governor did not do this. If he did and backed down, then I think it made him look weak and silly.
Either you jump in with both feet or you don't.
And of course what was done to her was wrong. But I'm not blaming our president..
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.