Constitutional amendment would have protected Terri Schiavo from starvation death

Renew America ^ | April 3, 2006 | Kevin Fobbs

[KevinNuPac]

Constitutional amendment would have protected Terri Schiavo from starvation death

Kevin Fobbs

April 3, 2006

Terri Schiavo would be alive today if the Founding Fathers had only thought to add to the Constitution "Food and Water" to the basic inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. There would be no need of an official Terri's Day. The Founding Fathers did not consider hydration and nutrition because it appeared no civilized nation at the time had deprived their citizens, not even their convicted criminals of that basic right, so therefore the thinking had to be, why include the obvious? Perhaps as Thomas Jefferson was at his desk laboring over crafting the correct wording for historic passages which would become the framework for our Constitution... food and water...just slipped his mind.

America's founders at its origin did not stumble over something so basic, because, the biblical basis respect for the life at the beginning and at the end was well grounded. It was sacrosanct to our developing American Culture.

Now, 230 years after America's founding and one year after Terri Schiavo's needless death, the nation finds itself stymied by a troubling dilemma. We must question just where does the Constitutional protection of "life" begin and end? Ask yourself, if your daughter collapsed in gym class at school and was comatose for a time but was not deathly ill, would you make a decision to deprive her of nutrition and of hydration because recent polls you read or saw on television that week, indicated starving your daughter to death is better because you won't see the same smile, or hear the same voice from her. Should the polls make your decision?

What about your son who's lying in a hospice bed and is now after 11 years is "unresponsive" to doctors or to his wife but he forces a smile for you, just around the edges of his mouth, and he blinks out a small tear when you talk about his old hockey games or reminisce about a young adult outing with three fishing buddies and how the big one nearly got away? The medical professionals are telling you to agree with his wife, and pull the plug by depriving his hydration and food. Whose quality of life is being measured here? Whose burden is being considered?

Where is the line? Where is the line when a wife or a husband has "moved on" and taken up with another person as a significant other? Where is the line when that daughter-in-law or son-in-law has moved on and even has one or two kids with the new person? Did we suddenly lose our common sense last year, or were we just willing to look the other way on Terri's rights? Is it always better to just simply turn the page on our basic rights, but suddenly become politically correct when it comes to protecting the rights of eleven to twenty million illegal aliens who have crossed over the border because they want our protection and our rights and because they "add value" to our nation's economy?

Would Terri Schiavo still be alive today if her right to eat and to consume water was tied to her usefulness in America's economy? Would Congressional leaders on Capitol Hill be giving stirring speeches about the anguish her family was going through and how our nation just could not subject her family — Mary, Bob, Bobby and Suzanne — to if only Terri's life had as much value as all those illegal aliens filling our nation's streets, many of them with unfurled Mexican flags?

Well, perhaps we should put the word out to our neighbors, colleagues, fellow parishioners or family members that the Culture of Life is worth campaigning for as well. The Founding Fathers may not have envisioned our need 230 years after our nation's birth to have a Constitutional state or federal law which protects a citizen's right to not be put to death by a judge, nor by a wife or husband's unsubstantiated words, or by popular polls that flourish in the Culture of Death because after all "everybody is doing it."

I said to Bobby Schindler and his sister Suzanne Schindler Vitadamo that Americans are willing to not only listen to the spirit of our nation's founders but to those who are willing to act when they understand how the war for the culture of life is inherent. It's not an entitlement left to the whims of America's contemporary version of the Roman coliseums where life and limb was literally torn from the victim because, after all, it was the "standard practice" used by civilized people at the time.

Up until March 18th of last year most Americans would have said that as a nation we had moved past the roar of the coliseum. Until March 31st last year, we probably would have said that a Pope, a President and a Congress would have gotten together to save the life of one defenseless American who should have had her life guaranteed by the Constitution but was denied it by a judge whose rulings were reminiscent of edicts from a Star Chamber from the Medieval times.

But it was not and the need for a Terri's Day that rallies Americans to the same passion to protect their loved ones that motivates millions of pledges to make clear for their families their "will to live" that champions the forgotten Constitutional Amendment that Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and all the other signers of the Declaration of Independence may have overlooked is necessary. The simple right to bread and water. We give it to prisoners but it was not good enough for an innocent, harmless American young woman, who loved animals, butterflies and life.

We value our loved ones and every moment they are with us. Make certain you take the first crucial step to insure they value you as well. The Schindler family — Bob, Mary, Bobby and Suzanne — would want you to join the crusade.

Encourage everyone you know to sign the pledge to support a resolution in every state in the nation declaring March 31 as Terri's Day and to help raise the funds the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation needs to work to make sure what happened to Terri doesn't happen to anyone else! Make Terri's Day an official day of "Remembrance and Celebration of the Culture of Life" (go to Terri's Day link at www.Terrisfight.org or www.kevinfobbs.com).

Perhaps one day soon with millions of signed pledges, millions of Americans will be able to stand up, march down the center of our streets and hold a good ole' fashioned "American Life Party" that the Boston Tea Party organizers would be proud of. March 31st is not the end but the beginning. Pass it around...America is waiting.

Kevin Fobbs is President of National Urban Policy Action Council (NuPac), a non-partisan civic and citizen-action organization that focuses on taking the politics out of policy to secure urban America's future one neighborhood, one city, and one person at a time. View NuPac on the web at www.nupac.info. Kevin Fobbs is a regular contributing columnist for the Detroit News. He is also the daily host of The Kevin Fobbs Show. Write him at kevin@kevinfobbs.com or kfobbs@ix.netcom.com.

© Copyright 2006 by Kevin Fobbs http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/fobbs/060403

[Celtjew Libertarian]

"Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness," is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

[Alter Kaker]

Kevin Fobbs is an idiot. Nowhere in the Constitution (which Thomas Jefferson did not write) is there any mention of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Other than that, this makes, uh, perfect sense.

[Alter Kaker]

...if only Terri's life had as much value as all those illegal aliens filling our nation's streets, many of them with unfurled Mexican flags?

Forgive me, but what does immigration have to do with the late Ms. Shiavo? Was she killed by Mexicans?

[Alter Kaker]

Also, www.nupac.info isn't a website.

[Constitution Day]

For your reference:

The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

Yes, it would have. But doesn't it exhibit what a sad and sorry circle society travels in, when they feel compelled to starve an individual just because they are not in the worke force?

[burzum]

True, but the Constitution (as amended) does include life, liberty, and property provisions:

Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 14, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Condor51]

Kevin Fobbs - you're an idiot. Well meaning maybe, but none the less an idiot.

Sure the 'Founding Fathers' should have put "Food & Water" in the Bill of Rights - NOT . THAT would be by definition socialism as then the gubmint, aka us, would be responsible for feeding everyone. (BTW Kevin, it was James Madison who penned the Constitution)

However now that we're on the Bill of Rights Kevin, how come the gubmint, aka the taxpayer, aka YOU, doesn't buy me any firearm I want? It's a Right. #2 as a matter of fact and I want one. So shouldn't the "G", aka YOU, have to pay for it? C'mon its a Colt SAA (Peacemaker) and only about $1,600.00 with tax. I'll even let you pick the caliber; .45LC or 44-40.

Then there's our 'guaranteed' pursuit of happiness Kevin. Well buddy, a new Gibson Les Paul Guitar would make me VERY happy. Will you buy me one Kevin? It's only a few grand, pretty please?

Anyway, Kevin you should read up on your civics and Federalism. The whole idea is a limited federal gubmint, with the people being free do do as they please. Which INCLUDES not having to feed or cloth your 'neighbor'. Heck, or even your brother.

ps: Kevin, I want a new pony too, get your wallet out.

[MosesKnows]

America's founders at its origin did not stumble over something so basic

It is discouraging to discover that a person who has reached a notable position in life has a flawed understanding of America's Constitution. The Constitution is not about people. The Constitution is about government. I would think Kevin Fobbs would know that but his opinions say otherwise.

[highball]

Wow. There's so many inaccuracies here, I don't know where to start.

"The pursuit of happiness" is not a Constitutional right, as others have noted. Were that the case, we couldn't have any drug laws.

Should the polls make your decision?

No one should ever let polls make medical decisions.

But we shouldn't let Washington make them for us, either.

[steve-b]

Why stop there? They should have added a right to housing, a right to medical care, a right to a job, a right to nice clothes, a right to vacations, a right to walking-around money, a right to a pony, a right to a new car, and a right to anything else somebody might ever want.

If they had, the modern welfare state might still be bad public policy, but at least it wouldn't be un-Constitutional.

[MineralMan]

""Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness," is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution."

Oh, picky, picky, picky! [grin]

[Sarastro]

The Bill of Rights states some rights in positive terms, e.g., the right to free speech, bear arms, and a jury trial by our peers. But the rights enumerated in the Constitution are in essence really all negative rights, meaning protections against the government infringing on our rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (not explicit Constitutional rights, as pointed out above).

Stated in the negative, the government may not infringe our rights by silencing us, shearing us of arms, quartering soldiers in our houses, barging into our houses, punishing us without the agreement of our peers, etc. The Constitution does not extend us any true positive rights, including the rights to food, shelter, health care, education, or anything else. We merely have the right to provide these things for ourselves or, if governmentally, below the Federal level.

The minute the government gives one citizen a positive right, such as to food, it must of necessity provide that food by taking it from someone else, without his approval, thus infringing his rights to enjoy the fruits of his labor. Of course the Federal government collects taxes, but they are Constitutionally limited to such public purposes as to provide for the common defense and a system for the administration of justice.

Nothing in the Constitution empowers the Federal government to tax us in order to provide goods and services to those who don't provide them for themselves. The founding fathers expected the needy to be supported by [voluntary] charity, not [mandatory] taxes.

[steve-b]

It is discouraging to discover that a person who has reached a notable position in life has a flawed understanding of America's Constitution. The Constitution is not about people. The Constitution is about government. I would think Kevin Fobbs would know that but his opinions say otherwise.

He might learn better if he used his membership to actually participate in this forum, rather than merely using it to post ads for himself.

[thoughtomator]

"Life" should have been sufficient. Adding "food and water" would eventually put the government into the role of feeding every man woman and child in America.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Perhaps... but it wasn't Jefferson who labored over those phrases.

[goldstategop]

Perhaps. In our day and age we shouldn't have to guarantee humane care of the innocent. It should be a matter of right and wrong. The Right To Life is guaranteed independent of state power. I submit the vexing question is how to get across in our Culture Of Death, the point that neither the law or nor a judge at any time may withdraw or forbid, the provision of food and water from an innocent human being. We used to understand the meaning of a moral obligation. It is what separates men and civilization from animals and the barbarians.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[highball]

neither the law or nor a judge at any time may withdraw or forbid, the provision of food and water from an innocent human being

No judge did. The judge in this case simply affirmed the sole right of the guardian to make decisions as to treatment within standard medical practice.