You misunderstand the one major intent of the separation of powers. At the time it also meant the separation of powers between the states and the national government. They were equals. The only time I speak about the Judicial branch, the federal judicial branch, is when they have either created power for the federal government, such as the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, or when they recognize this incorporation was never intended, such as in the case of Janice Rogers Brown.
I do have an agenda. As a conservative that is still wanting limited government, I will speak against those that are willing to engage the national government in what was clearly a state issue. I will speak against those that would use the national government to forward their agenda at all costs, even up to destroying any possibility of returning to the federalist intent for what they deem to be a just cause. It's sad the woman died. But I am tired most of all from those that would use the Constitution as it was not intended. The Constitution was not intended to be a list of rights for the citizens of the respective states. It was intended only as a list of limitations upon the federal government and nothing else. Framer after Framer after Framer stated this and was concerned about this one issue (well except for the monarchist Hamilton), the possibility that the national government would eventually swallow any power the states held. It is pitiful to see 'conservatives' not only not having a problem with it, but advocating it to forward their agenda
I don't disagree with much of what you said except your misstatement that I do not understand the major intent of the separation of powers. You are so focused on it, you see the mote in our eyes and miss the beam in yours.
I saw up real close blatent judicial tyranny right up the line, counterbalanced by nothing at all, certainly not the will of the people. If you cannot see that, with all the detailed verbage you effuse, that is unfortunate.
For I have a far more "conservative" critical view of our Federal government than you have expressed, and I can also see where, wrapped around the axle on this one issue, you are alienating others who may see you have some point. I might have been on your side of the skirmish line in the Confederacy.
But, I can see clearly enough to recognize State sponsored murder as wrong, despite the legalese to the contrary.
Terri was murdered and the Judiciary approved. In face of that simple reality, polemics wither.
That's all very pretty, and indeed, admirable. We'd all like to see the Constitution honored in its original form. But it is not so honored, and never has been. Jefferson complained that Madison v. Marbury overturned the separation of powers and ushered in judicial despotism, and it is hard to say that he was wrong. Albert Jay Nock observed wryly that the Constitution was disregarded so quickly that pleas for its restoration were heard before the ink was dry. We still hear such pleas and they still don't do any good. There is no chance the original Constitution will come back, either. Citing it is simply moot.
If the state of Florida played by ITS original rules, then it would be theoretically interesting to cite the original national Constitution, as you do. But if Florida were playing fair, would there have been a ruling to execute an innocent citizen? Of course not.
Again, total areo fritto! must be embaressing!