Ex Supreme Court Justice O'Connor Bashes Pro-Life Advocates on Terri Schiavo

LifeNews.com ^ | March 13, 2006 | by Steven Ertelt

[Galveston Grl]

Great point! She is a nut and I am glad she is off the bench.

[Mr. Silverback]

One would assume that the death of one of its citizens would fall under the 'ordinary course of affairs' and the lives, liberties, and properties of the people'.

You act as if Congress passed a law against death, or one requiring every DNR to be approved by a supermajority in Congress. First, If a government body believes another government body is allowing a man to murder his wife, that is not the "ordinary course of affairs." Second, the Congress directed federal courts to do something that Congress had the authority to tell federal courts to do. Congress did not, in any way, direct a state court to do anything.

The 14th Amendment was an abomination on the republic, and in effect has been used to destroy the Republic the Framers envisioned.

Yeah, letting individual states violate the Bill of Rights would have been the bee's knees!

But it is good to see 'conservatives' embracing big government when it suits their needs.

1. That's straw man BS. Tell me, if an FBI agent witnesses a murder committed by a state trooper, does he have the authority to arrest that trooper, or is that too much "big government" intrusion? If a state were to pass a law saying that useless eaters must be starved to death, should we just ignore that and pat ourselves on the back for our keen grasp of your version of federalism?

2. Silverback's First Law of Free Republic: People who say those conservatives who disagree with them are not really conservatives do so because they have no other way of turning aside better argumentation.

[billbears]

First, If a government body believes another government body is allowing a man to murder his wife, that is not the "ordinary course of affairs."

As long as that body is within the state that decision has to be made within the state. Whether or not I like or agree with the decision is an entirely different matter. However, I would not break the intent of the Framers to get my way either. About now, the faulty 14th Amendment argument comes out. Unfortunately, due process was followed. Even federal courts agreed with this. However, if you mean the federal government is above the state governments (which you do) and should have a right to review their cases, then no. The Framers understood this to be the case. I would recommend the Federalist papers dealing specifically with the judicial system. It speaks solely of the federal system and not the state. Why? Because the intent of the Constitution was meant to apply solely to the federal government

Second, the Congress directed federal courts to do something that Congress had the authority to tell federal courts to do. Congress did not, in any way, direct a state court to do anything.

What jurisdiction caused this to fall into the federal courts in the first place? Federal courts can't go out and seek cases you know. This was not a 14th Amendment case. And I would suggest you read Scalia's decision in the preceding case dealing with the same matter. Even he, suprisingly somewhat, notes this.

That's straw man BS.

Of course it is to you. You don't want a federalist system, you want a national system, that is as long as it makes the 'right' decisions. The second it doesn't however, you'd scream to high heaven for the rights of the states. I, on the other hand, recognize the inherent faults within the system and am willing to live with them to protect the federalist ideal. This is a system designed by man, not God. With the good does come bad.

Tell me, if an FBI agent witnesses a murder committed by a state trooper, does he have the authority to arrest that trooper, or is that too much "big government" intrusion?

Depends on the state. He would make the arrest more than likely. The question then is where the case is tried. If the state trooper did not kill a federal official, then the only place that case should be tried is within the state system.

If a state were to pass a law saying that useless eaters must be starved to death, should we just ignore that and pat ourselves on the back for our keen grasp of your version of federalism?

LOL, guess you better make sure you elect the right people then. Be concerned with your local elections instead of what 537 idiots in Washington should be doing (which is next to nothing). The first step for this would be to retract the 17th Amendment. You'll be darn sure you know who you elect into the state house then wouldn't you?

Silverback's First Law of Free Republic: People who say those conservatives who disagree with them are not really conservatives do so because they have no other way of turning aside better argumentation.

Yeah, I'm not a conservative. You caught me. I have challenged more than one of you statists to provide support for your positions from the Framers, from their own words, the Federalist papers, the Anti-Federalist papers, and the Constitution. The fact is they were very clear on what few decisions should be made in Washington and how many decisions should be made at the local level. Your arguments will easily hold water to modern conservatism. But when compared to the intent, they will fall apart. Every time.