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.
Because he knows it would not get 3/4 of the states to agree to it. He also knows that the abortion question will be returned to the states when he appoints the next two Supreme Court justices and Roe v. Wade is overturned.
And as I pointed out earlier, the President has no authority over a constitutional amendment. He is entirely out of the loop. If it is passed by 2/3 of Congress, and 3/4 of the states it becomes an amendment -- the President does not have to sign it or do anything.
I thought that the congress and president stepped in. They were ignored.
I guess he could have called out the national guard as Eisenhauer did in Little Rock in the 50s to segregate the school there, but clearly there was violation of the law.
I'm less sure here, esp if no court federal or otherwise says there was.
Had any of the federal courts intervened it would have been different.
Still, I'm not blaming our president.
I like your site.
I wonder what Teddy Roosevelt would have done..
I think your remarks are out of line. If you haven't walked in the shoes maybe it is a different journey than what you think it should be. The President is a man just like the rest of us who answers to others just like the rest of us. I for one will never understand why this has happened but it is not for me to understand. There is a reason for everything. Since God's ways are not our ways, I am sure what has happened has happened per the divine plan. Someday we will understand and know why. Then won't you feel bad for blaming a man for something someone else is responsible for and has to answer for? ALL will reap their rewards in the end.
yup. Other than Signing the Bill no EXECUTIVE ACTION was taken.
Don't put your trust in princes.
His political and legal people would have crushed Judge Greer and company like a bug in about two hours.
Unlike our current crop of politicians, he didn't submit to a gonad removal upon taking office.
How does he know? Who ever thought the decidedly Democratic Catholic voting block would suddenly and decisively shift towards conservativism - and almost entirely on the pro-life issue?
when he appoints the next two Supreme Court justices
No offense, but I'm really stifling my laughter. Let's look at the recent track record of the GOP and so-called "conservative" judges:
Souter
Kennedy
O'Conner
(should I go on?)
And as I pointed out earlier, the President has no authority over a constitutional amendment. He is entirely out of the loop.
He doesn't vote in Congress, either, but he's doing a lot of traveling in the name of a social security bill getting passed in the legislature. He can certainly press for an amenment, even though he is techinically "out of the loop".
Given Greer's history, he will just rule that unconstitutional and go on. Pay attention, the President just got beat by a swamp judge.
So we can't criticize Judge Greer?
what an understatement - all branches - all parties
Don't become President if you don't want to be a leader. I expect much much MUCH more of him than I do a private citizen.
The President when signing the Federal Law that Congress passed, should have had a team of US Marshals in Place.
And as he was signing the bill he should have been on the phone.
"Mr US Marshall, this is the President. At this very moment I am signing two pieces of paper, a Law passed by congress to give Terri Schiavo a new hearing in Federal Court, and an Executive order, instructing you to take her into custody, and escort her to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Make it happen.
See 594, that wasnt necessary.
Presidents can't serve in fear of political fallout. Either they have firm beliefs or they don't. I prefer my leaders to have firm beliefs that reflect conservative values.
I don't. You made an obscene comparison, got called on it, refuse to retract it and are now playing deflective games.
He has to sign or veto a Social Security bill. He can do neither with a constitutional amendment.
The governor has the first responsibility in his own state, I think we agree. But when he is unwilling to exert his power to preserve innocent life, then it is a case for the Commander in Chief to step in at the federal level, to prevent an assault on a person protected also by the federal Constitution.
I think we all agree with these sentiments:
"I just feel like the federal government has to be involved," Mrs. Bush said. "It is a life issue that really does require government to be involved."
First Lady Laura Bush Says Government Right to Intervene in Case of Brain-Damaged Florida Woman
That is, of course, a no-brainer. All three branches of the federal government are obligated to protect life, by virtue of the Constitution.
It seems obvious that the errosion of public understanding of our Constitution has played a part here. There was no malicious will at the executive branch. The governor and president simply heeded uninformed advice as to their duties and powers.
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.