Replies

and follow up with a good dose of the Federalist papers to get at what power the founders really intended be vested in the judiciary vs the executive and legislative branches.

When you or I bring up the Federalist Papers, lawyers immediately shout that they are not dispositive of constitutional interpretation. But that is only because the courts no longer use the Constitution for its dispositions. It is interesting that Judge Birch used them in his opinion for supporting denial of relief to Terri Schiavo. So I suppose currently they operate in only one direction.

But for some specific FP references, start with these. The clear implication is that the executive was never intended as the rubber stamp for and force behind judicial fiat:

"Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."Federalist #78

"It may in the last place be observed that the supposed danger of judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority, which has been upon many occasions reiterated, is in reality a phantom. Particular misconstructions and contraventions of the will of the legislature may now and then happen; but they can never be so extensive as to amount to an inconvenience, or in any sensible degree to affect the order of the political system. This may be inferred with certainty, from the general nature of the judicial power, from the objects to which it relates, from the manner in which it is exercised, from its comparative weakness, and from its total incapacity to support its usurpations by force." Federalist #81

For those of you who think this is Jeb Bush's fault: Do you also blame him for all the other feeding tube removals in florida prior to Terri?

How about all the governors in all the states being blamed for removal of feeding tubes of people who left no living will and had relatives, spouse or parents or otherwise, deciding for them? Are these governors to blame also? Are they murderers as you would paint Jeb Bush?

What makes this case different from the thousands of others that have occured over the years? Is Clinton also responsible for all the feeding tube removal deaths that occured during his presidency? If he is why are you not bashing him for it? Why are you not calling for impeachment of every Govenor in every state? They all have had people who 's feeding tubes were removed without a living will or knowlege of their real wishes. Why are you not raising he** with them also?

I think the ones blaming the gov are simply Bush haters, IMO.

If you think Bush should have used force, did you use force? Did any of you Bush blamers rush the hospice and free Terri? Did any of you who advocate violence risk your job and career and jail time storming the hospice, shooting it out with guards, risking killing a few and risking getting yourself killed? Did I miss reading about that in the paper?

If Bush lacks cajones for not doing anything, what does that make you? Are you not then a coward for failing to act on your pricinples? Or is it only cowardly if a governor fails to act?

Ah yes but both FP#78 and FP#81 presume as I said "an executive with the will to perform."; Jeb Bush fails and Terri pays with her life for his failure and we all pay in terms of losing this one battle for our republic. It is good I suppose to provide the FP references but there is much to be learned by reading them in their entirety which is what I had hoped to entice our friend to do. When one says he has heard no words to support etc in this case it is either because he has not been watching the traffic or has purposefully ignored the truth to support his own agenda. I suspect the latter in this particular thread.