Posted on 10/25/2007 4:05:19 PM PDT by wagglebee
He says they would be more likely to support the actions Congress and the Florida legislature took to try to help his family prevent her former husband from subjecting her to a painful euthanasia death if they knew more about her case.
"I want to personally talk with them about Terri's case," Bobby Schindler told the Boston Globe. "They need to be fully informed. There obviously exists a lot of confusion about my sister's situation."
Schindler told the newspaper that he plans to write each candidate a letter about Terri's circumstances and the painful 13-day starvation and dehydration death her former husband Michael made her endure.
He says Terri's case was not an end-of-life one because she wasn't dying and that his family took their lawsuit to federal courts because state courts had mandated that she be killed.
Thompson responded to questions about Terri Schiavo on Monday and said he didn't think that government should intervene in cases like hers. He says government should stay out and let families decide.
“It should be decided by the families — the federal government and the state government too, except for the court system, ought to stay out of those matters as far as I am concerned," he said.
One leading pro-life advocate who spoke with LifeNews.com about the comments on the condition of anonymity said the media is making too much of Thompson's comments in an attempt to show a divide between him and the pro-life movement or the Schindler family.
The pro-life leader said Thompson's view that government shouldn't make end-of-life decisions fits into the pro-life perspective but that government had to intervene in Terri's case because her family was split over her care.
However the pro-life community views Thompsons' remarks, the Schindler family has found a reason to be disappointed with the comments most of the candidates have had on the case.
The family endorsed pro-life Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, but he dropped out of the race last week.
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has come under fire for his comments, as have ex-New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and Senator John McCain of Arizona.
Even former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who is considered one of the better candidates left in the race from the pro-life perspective, told the St. Petersburg Times earlier this year, "I wasn't sure how the federal government had a role in all that."
Terri’s heart stopped for several minutes that night, and that stoppage caused the brain damage that led to her current condition. It is frequently asserted in press accounts that Terri had a “heart attack.” This too is false. There was no heart attack, and again, doctors have testified to that effect. A heart attack causes the release of certain enzymes into the bloodstream. These enzymes are readily discovered in tests and are used as the “markers” of a heart attack. No such enzymes were found in Terri’s bloodstream, nor any other evidence of a heart attack. Terri’s heart was and is quite healthy: there was no heart attack.
So what happened to cause Terri to lose consciousness? No one is sure, because there was never a proper investigation. The Schindlers do not accept Michael’s version of what happened to Terri. Also, Bob related, “it’s in the medical record that when Terri was brought into the hospital she had bruises around her neck.” Doctors for the Schindlers have testified that those bruises were consistent with manual strangulation. Furthermore, skull x-rays and head CT scans done about a year after her injury indicated fractures to the occipital region which have never been explained. These fractures are consistent with trauma to the head.
The theory that Terri was strangled gains plausibility when one considers that friends and siblings of Terri’s testified that they were aware that Michael had abused Terri prior to the night of her injury. Bob & Mary were not aware of this themselves before Terri’s injury. “I found out afterwards,” Bob said, “that they [Terri’s friends and brother] had been keeping that from me.” But, Bob, explained, Terri’s best friend, Jackie Rhoades, testified at the 1996 guardianship hearing that she knew Terri was being abused, that she frequently saw her with bruises on her arms and legs, and that Terri was afraid of Michael. Jackie further stated that Terri intended to divorce Michael, and that she and Terri were making plans to do that. Terri’s brother Bobby also testified to his knowledge of Terri’s abuse, and corroborated much of Jackie’s testimony.
These allegations and the evidence behind them have.
http://heavenlyhands.net/ffrob2.html
What part of your liberaltarian-anarchist mindset does not understand that Supreme Court rulings are not infallible?
Do you believe that rulings such as Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Barron v. Baltimore and Buck v. Bell were Constitutional? (It would not surprise me to learn that you agree with any or all of them.) Does a majority of votes on the Supreme Court mean that something is Constitutional or just?
The First Amendment specifically mentions Congress, the remainder of the Bill of Rights DOES NOT. It is inconceivable that the Founding Fathers would not have seen these as binding on the individual states. Especially the Fifth Amendment because, then as now, most crimes are at the state and not federal level.
Terri was protected under the US and Florida Constitutions and this means that there was federal jurisdiction as does the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The more I read from RINO Paul supporters like you, the more I see that you are not only insane, you are also dangerous.
And yet mysteriously you provide no proof. I could tell you why you provide no proof of your argument (other than there not being any proof) but it's getting rather bothersome.
The issue that the Bill of Rights be applied to the separate and sovereign states was addressed. The wording was even in some of the Amendments to incorporate said Amendments to the states. However that wording was dropped
This time I want YOU to post the TENTH AMENDMENT, and READ IT CAREFULLY, and you will see that states’ rights only apply IF IT’S NOT ALREADY IN THE CONSTITUTION.
Otherwise, the rest of the Constitution would be null and void.
I’m afraid you’ve been buying the LIBERALtarian spin.
The LIBERALtarian platform is pro-abortion, but yet the LIBERALtarians think they are Constitutional scholars.
WHAT A JOKE!
And the Preamble is the premise for the Constitution:
“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.”
Posterity is the Unborn!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/thehealthnews.html?in_article_id=490022&in_page_id=1797&ct=5
What real reason would there have been for the Bill of Rights (especially the Fifth Amendment) if there really was no protection. Nearly all crimes (and probably even a higher percentage two centuries ago) were state crimes not federal crimes, for these rights not to apply at the state level made no sense.
I notice you declined to answer my question about overturned SCOTUS decisions.
Last time I checked there I was the only one providing the words of the Framers themselves. You fell back to nothing more than 'this is what I feeeellll'. So by definition apparently now being a 'scholar' is telling us all how you feeeeelllll. Gotcha.
And the Preamble is the premise for the Constitution:
Ahhh yes. Those that have no argument tend to the Preamble as an argument itself. As I said, you have no words for the Framers that would support your deluded nationalist bastardized view of government. So you claim the Preamble. I knew it would come to this. It always does with big government Social 'conservatives'. But for your edification (although it won't help) I'll leave you again with the words of Madison as it pertained specifically to the Preamble eh? Of course in this instance it was dealing with the Alien and Sedition Acts but it applies in this instance as well
For the honor of American understanding, we will not believe that the people have been allured into the adoption of the Constitution by an affectation of defining powers, whilst the preamble would admit a construction which would erect the will of Congress into a power paramount in all cases, and therefore limited in none. On the contrary, it is evident that the objects for which the Constitution was formed were deemed attainable only by a particular enumeration and specification of each power granted to the Federal Government; reserving all others to the people, or to the States. And yet it is in vain we search for any specified power embracing the right of legislation against the freedom of the press.Get that did you? The Preamble is not, contrary to social 'conservatives', a damned catch all to allow the federal government to do what it desires.Had the States been despoiled of their sovereignty by the generality of the preamble, and had the Federal Government been endowed with whatever they should judge to be instrumental towards union, justice, tranquillity, common defence, general welfare, and the preservation of liberty, nothing could have been more frivolous than an enumeration of powers.--Madison, 1799
I will sleep well tonight knowing your view rightly failed and always will when put to the light of federalism and the intended role of the federal government
God help you but you're dense aren't you? Listen very carefully. Barron ruled the 5th Amendment was not intended to apply to the states. The original list of 17 Amendments did have wording that put limitations on the separate and sovereign states. That wording was changed before the 10 were accepted. Therefore it was understood by all the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states
Nearly all crimes (and probably even a higher percentage two centuries ago) were state crimes not federal crimes, for these rights not to apply at the state level made no sense.
I really am not going to bother anymore. Why? Because I don't care. I have explained it using the words of the Framers themselves. Believe it, don't believe it. I don't care. The Bill of Rights under original intent did not apply to the states. Barron even stated why it didn't. The incorporation of the BOR to the separate and sovereign states did not occur until the 20th century.
I notice you declined to answer my question about overturned SCOTUS decisions.
Why bother? You'll twist that into something else won't you? That's what those who don't use quotes from Framers do. You don't care what the rule of law is, you care about how you feel. Do not bother responding because I will not reply again. I thought after two years you lot would have bothered to pick up a damned book besides something written by the Schiavos to learn a little. Apparently not.
You and your liberaltarian ilk are still trying to talk about SCOTUS rulings that have been OVERTURNED and you are employing the fallacious reasoning that all Supreme Court rulings are actually constitutional.
Why bother? You'll twist that into something else won't you? That's what those who don't use quotes from Framers do. You don't care what the rule of law is, you care about how you feel. Do not bother responding because I will not reply again. I thought after two years you lot would have bothered to pick up a damned book besides something written by the Schiavos to learn a little. Apparently not.
Conservatives talk about the FOUNDING FATHERS, liberals like yourself use the term "framers." The RULE OF LAW is what the law is now, not overturned laws. Your pathetic interpretation of the rule of law would still allow for slavery. As far as Terri goes, you seem incapable of comprehending that she was protected by both the US and Florida Constitutions, not to mention innumerable state and federal laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Interesting you should say that....
In recognition that it's Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange--Walter Williams
Walter Williams is a 'liberal'. Who knew? LOL.
The rest of your tripe I've already covered. But do please keep posting it. And I do appreciate your name calling. It adds so much credence to your posts, since you don't actually have quotes to back up your claims...
Then let me ask you this: what possible purpose does the Second Amendment serve if EACH AND EVERY STATE can prohibit the right to keep and bear arms within the state? Because, this is EXACTLY what you seem to espouse.
Silly me. I post the Preamble and the Fifth Amendment, EXACTLY as it was written, and you pretend to know what our Founders meant.
You and I are like a team.
I post the facts, and then you spin them. lol
STill waiting for you to post the Tenth Amendment........
Don’t forget the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment SPECIFICALLY states that Congress can make laws to enforce the Amendment.
And as your ignorance continues to amaze I only 'espoused' one that was addressed repeatedly in SCOTUS. I would bother posting the cases but why bother? You feel so why would you need the law eh? If you so choose to look up the cases I'll give you a hint. Second half of the 19th century at least 5 years after the passage of the 14th.
For the record, Parker and Emerson have changed that view somewhat, but to my knowledge nothing has reached SCOTUS for final definition.
BTW, are you going to ping everybody sometime I back you into a corner with an argument that goes over your head? Or is this just going to be random....
And for the record as Mr. Madison later said in the speech I quoted, it is up to the separate and sovereign states to pass their own protections as they see fit for their respective citizens. This would apply to the Second Amendment as well
The family wanted to take care of her. Her estranged husband wanted her out of the way, so he could pursue his new life without having to be concerned about her.
I agree. He didn’t want to turn Terri over to the parents because hated them (Michael testfied this) and he wanted to inherit her money and marry his fiance. AT THE TIME THE DECISION WAS MADE all of this factor existed leading to the simple fact that Michael had profound conflict of interest on his part. This becomes more significant when the only evidence of Terri’s intent came from Michael, his brother and sister in law and that there was nothing in writing.
What about the First Amendment?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1914017/posts
bttt.
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.