The LP has a lot in common with the Democrats in that way. That says a lot.
Posted on 04/08/2005 5:00:59 PM PDT by libertarianben
Playing to the demands of their Christian-right base, Republicans chose to abandon even the slightest notion that they support states' rights in the case of Terri Schiavo.
(Excerpt) Read more at lp.org ...
The LP has a lot in common with the Democrats in that way. That says a lot.
The US Constitution guarantees certain rights. Among them are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit....
When indididual states are perceived to be violating those rights...the federal government has the right to investigate, legislate, and intervene to certain extents.
Bravo!
If, for example, Montana ever decided to unilaterally declare martial law and suspend the Constitution (or just the parts that it didn't like), that would be a federal case, too. The Republicans wouldn't sit back and say, "Yo, that's cool."
TS
LP News is much like LP Gas... Inflammatory, foul-smelling, and of no use to most of America unless tanked.
Buh Bye.
Saw your screen name. Read your homepage. Both tell me all I need to know.
BTW, what's a parnet?
This cuts it for me. Even though I think of myself as having a libertarial bent, I can't support this juvenile "analysis".
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
The State of Florida failed to protect Terri's life and the GOP stepped in because it was the RIGHT thing to do. The Federal Court then failed to follow the instructions of Congress to review the facts of the case. What they did was rule on process and even that was flawed as the dissenting opinions clearly state.
The Congress screwed up because they did nothing to force the Court to review the facts as the Court was properly empowered and instructed to do.
If Congress' order was un-Constitutional the Federal Court could've vacated the order as such and made no ruling at all. Instead they accepted the jurisdictional grant and then failed to execute the order they were given jurisdiction to execute.
Finally, when individual rights are violated then state's rights are irrelevant. Every time.
If you guys want to develop any credibility you need to differentiate yourselves from the Democrats.
Was it RIGHT to starve a living Human Being to death?
The answer is NO! and no rational being can say anything different. All retoric aside - - - It was not proper to starve a human being to death. Cease and desist, any other opinion is wrong.
That is what the Republicans were protecting.
Republicans support every state's right that is consonant with human rights in general, and the Bill of Rights in particular. It's not only disingenuous; it's positively monstrous to suggest that there is any such thing as a "state's right" to murder, or for that matter, to enslave, its citizens. Given the choice between mindless sophistry and the Rights of Man, commend me to the latter every time.
"BTW, what's a parnet?"
I believe it is early Aramaic (or was it Swahili?) for:
A confused liberal who mistakes oneself for a conservative.
Not only that, but I highly suspect that the libertarians are the authors of the current cult of Death, to the extent they've argued that individuals have a property right vested in themselves.
States have the right to kill innocent citizens? Cool! Let the killings begin! And if we can kill them, can't we also enslave them? States rights are awesome!
Opposing Federal intervention on the Shiavo case in is like opposing Federal intervention during Segregation.
pretty much what they're learning in public schools...
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.