[Wonder Warthog]

Good article. Schafly is correct on all points. Of course, the REAL problem is that Congress and President Bush basically caved in to the judiciary, instead of asserting the rights and privileges of THEIR "separate and co-equal" branches of the Government. What SHOULD have been done is for the Federal executive branch to send in a group of Federal Marshalls to enforce the subpoena, and the court decision be damned.

Unless and until the other branches get enough cojones to stand up to the judicial branch, we can count on much more of the same.

[The Great Yazoo]

What if the courts were limited in their exercise of judicial power with respect to private citizens as they are limited with respect to the sovereign?

What I mean is that judges, legislators, state's attorneys (prosecutors in Florida) have judicial and legislative immunity for their wrongful acts except when clearly outside their roles as judges, legislators, or prosecutors.
What if similar immunities were afforded private citizens in the course of their duties?

Similarly, the concept of "sovereign immunity" works to limit damages that a court may impose upon a governmental unit (and in Florida, it limits attorneys' fees that a successful litigant can be charged by that litigant's attorneys).
Isn't what's good for the "sovereign" goose good for the citizen gander (or is that "subject" not "citizen")?

While such approaches would not directly address the issues raised by Mrs. Schlafly, I really think the reasons the courts are "run-away" in the first place is to further certain economic interests. Attacking the economic incentive at the source may be better than a head-on assault that can be spun as "taking away citizens' rights to redress grievances."

[chimera]

You've summarized the problem nicely. The original concept of the Founders is inoperable. The system of checks and balances implicit in a tripartite system wherein the different branches are (theoretically) co-equal has broken down. So you have the spectacle we have today, and the tragic travesty of the Schiavo case, wherein one branch of government is abusing its authority by ordering the death of an innocent citizen of the land, and the other branches cower in fear before and submit in despicable obsequiousness to the black-robed tyrant.

[TAdams8591]

Well said. I couldn't agree more.

[k2blader]

I still think Jeb should've taken action first as it happened in his backyard. However, since he did nothing, I agree the President should have done what you suggest.

[Common Tator]

What SHOULD have been done is for the Federal executive branch to send in a group of Federal Marshalls to enforce the subpoena, and the court decision be damned.

That option was lost when in 1801 the Supreme Court ruled that the man who wrote the constitution did not know what it said. That is when Chief Justice Marshal ruled that James Madison, the constitution's author, did not understand the true meaning of the words he had written. In Marbury VS. Madison, the court ruled that Madison did not understand the true meaning of the constitution Madison had written.

The sad part is neither Madison, a cabinet member, or Thomas Jefferson, the president, ever disputed the courts ruling that Madison did not understand the meaning of the words he himself had written in the Constitution.

If the author of the constitution and Thomas Jefferson as president did not think they had the power to overrule a justice, then who in the world does have the power?

Saying that Bush should have violated a court order when neither the constitution's author, James Madison or the Declaration of Independence author Thomas Jefferson felt they had a right to violate a court order, just shows ignorance of how are system of government has functioned for over 200 years.

Neither Madison nor Jefferson or any other president has felt they had the right to violate court orders. President Bush doesn't either. Any president that tried it would be impeached and convicted.

During the Truman administration the Supreme court ordered Truman to undo something he had done. Truman reversed his decision and apologized to the court.

I guess only you and a few criminals think they can just ignore a judges rulings.

We are a nation of laws and not men. But since Marbury Vs Madison in 1801 the law has been what ever the judges say it is.