Posted on 03/11/2007 7:40:49 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
TAMPA -- He's campaigning hard for support from Republican social conservatives, but presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Saturday he disagreed with the government's intervention in the Terri Schiavo case.
"I think it's probably best to leave these kinds of matters in the hands of the courts," Romney said in a television interview airing today.
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
You mean you don't already have one posted at YouTube?
There are certain pivotal events in the success or failure of movements. Years from now, I would expect some of these events to be emblematic of either success or failure...I'll leave you to judge:
The Schiavo Ordeal.
Outlawing internet gambling.
Neo-Prohibition (predicted).
According to Wm. Blackstone, 18th century jurist and author the multi-volumned "Common Law" upon which most of our law in the United States is based on, wrote that one of the purposes of government is to act as guardian to those persons who, through age, disability, circumstances, etc. require someone to stand for their interest but have no one,i.e. the minor, the retarded, the infirm, the aged, etc. etc.
IOW,
1) The government acts as a guardian where the person in question has no guardian/ someone answerable. This was not the case with Schiavo. And even it were, government guardianship does not automatically mean that that person has a "right" to life irregardless, and that the government can never order medical support be suspended.
2) Despite her physical condition the fact remains that Schiavo was not a minor, ergo her parents were not her guardian. Like it or not, her husband was -- b/c under the law when a man and woman marry they become one. If the situation had been reversed she would have been his guardian,not his parents.
3) The parents of Mrs. Schavio sought to use the court to reassert their role as her guardian; a role they surrendered when she reached 21 (or 18 depending) years of age. They demanded legal guardianship over Schievo their grown daughter over Mrs. Schievo, who happened to be their daughter.
4) Bare in mind that while it may be morally reprehensible, it is not a crime to live with another woman and have children by her. To marry that other woman while still married is to another is against the law; to "live in sin" is not. Mr. Schavio's private life may have been open to criticism by some, but it was not illegal and therefore no grounds to denial of his guardianship over his wife.
LOL!!!! Good one!!!!!!! You Terri-bots. are funny.. You complain about Bush increasing the size of Government, yet all of you want the power of Federal to go into what into a state matter and override a living will.
As I recall, psycho two-timing hubby denied her rehabilitation treatment. Repeatedly. He used up her money elsewhere. He insisted she not be fed by mouth even though she could swallow, because she might 'aspirate' and harm herself. Then he insisted the feeding tube be removed so she could die and he could be rid of her. Sounds kinda psycho to me! I also recall some suspicious fractures showing up on the original Xrays when she first went into this state. Hmm... but that was never really looked into. And you wouldn't want her by chance to regain any communication skills if you were responsible for putting her in that state. She was also contemplating divorce before this happened. It happened after they fought about her spending what $75 at the beauty salon or something.
I'm just pulling this stuff out of my head, as what I remember from back then. It may not be accurate but you're a big boy and can do your own research (if you really care). But I do remember thinking back then that a lot of stuff looked really fishy... that there were other examples of people being 'left to die' and pushed through this court system after they had been used for extracting money out of the system. Good place to do that kind of racket, Florida has a large elderly population.
Our earlier threads show this to be a pretty widespread belief.
It's really no wonder wo many murdered people knew their killer.
At the same time most of those folks look down their noses at the innercity people doing drive-byes.
For activists on this issue, now is the time to separate that out. Politicians would then have political cover/obscurity they need to get it taken care of without making it a family rights issue.
Sometimes, goals can be so right...and strategy so unbelievably wrong. In my personal case...We're just making sure our living wills are up to date. Solves a multitude of potential problems. :-)
Thanks for the info.
Thank you. I do not know why that strategy was not employed in the effort to save her life.
What, when he figures out it isn't popular?
"Oh, you have the revised Constitution that has that infamous "separation of church and state" thing."
The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, quoting the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, he writes: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights, who often wrote of "total separation of the church from the state" (1819 letter to Robert Walsh). "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote, and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States" (1811 letter to Baptist Churches). This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which was originally authored by Thomas Jefferson, but championed by Madison. The Declaration guarantees that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.
No, this would have been the place for the people utilizing their rights to resist an oppressive government that stopped loving people from giving a poor helpless innocent woman a drink of water.
Ding!Ding!Ding!Ding! We have a loser.
I've long written that one reason, as a libertarian, I preferred the political right to the left is that I while I had often seen those on the left wish harm on a child, because of the parents' political, I had never seen it on the right.
You've broken that argument for me.
Well, the Schiavo issue already had broken me from my 10-year loyalty to the Republican Party. I don't like what happened, but if, God forbid, I or may family end up in a similar situation, I don't want the Federal government looking over my shoulder. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
I sure would like to hear Glenn Beck's reaction to this.
It took away Ms Schiavo's liberty to have her wishes, as determined by the concerned courts of law, respected in her manner of dying.
It might well qualify.
At least one conservative jurist found the law deficient on a number of other grounds, as well:
http://www.acsblog.org/separation-of-powers-the-constitutionality-of-terri-schiavos-law.html
"And that's the point in Terri's case. A local judge issued a literal death warrant, to be carried out by cruel and unusual means. Every individual who had raised their hand and sworn to uphold the constitution had an obligation to resist such an unconstitutional act with all their power and might."
And we (myself included) did not follow through on our obligation, and Terri died as a direct result. My excuse is that I live in Oklahoma, not Florida, but that is all it is. We should have stopped that unlawful execution, by force of arms if necessary.
What, by posting his own words?
We could try Tim Pawlenty. Though he's not running for prez yet.
At this point, what Republican is not on my s**t list? Other than maybe Newt. I don't see anyone that doesn't capitulate to the left. What's the difference if you say we're throwing our votes away if we vote for a third party, a democrat will get into office -- we vote republican and we get democrats anyway so what's the difference?
Actually, his current view is the popular view. And unfortunately, I doubt that will change in our lifetimes.
I am not commenting on the content of your post, but just to let you know it sounded funny when I read it out loud. :-)
Look, you want the right to kill, you have to accept the responsibility of defending yourself ~ and that's in all venues, not just grandma's bedroom.
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.