8mm
Posted on 10/25/2007 4:05:19 PM PDT by wagglebee
Alan Keyes.
Jeb Bush camped out in front of the cameras, begging for someone to show him how he had the authority to save Terri.
So, Alan Keyes showed up at Bush’s offices with a brilliant brief that not only showed that he clearly had the authority, but not only that: he had the sworn duty to uphold Article One, Section Two of the Florida constitution. But, Jeb left him cooling his heels on the doorstep, then trotted off to a worthless photo op with Jesse Jackson.
When Jeb failed in his sworn constitutional duty, his brother had a sworn duty to step in and enforce the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.
To America’s shame, and the Schindler family’s horrific loss, both Bush brothers failed the most important test of their lives and careers.
That could be I haven’t researched it. I knew he was in the house at the time and that he has publically supported the action now when it is not as popular so I presumed that he had voted for it.
I would like for the Schindlers to throw their support to Duncan Hunter because he supported the government intervening. He believes that we should always err on the side of life.
My memory is that there was a hastily convened session to deal with Terri’s case.
Is that not correct? I think so.
In which situation, many times the most far flung congressmen don’t return to DC unless their vote is crucial. Duncan lives in California, as far flung from DC as it gets save for the Pac. NW, Alaska and Hawaii.
As for his vote, it wasn’t remotely needed for passage, yet he took a public position in favor and defends that position ‘til this day.
I also recall President Bush making an unscheduled and hasty trip from Camp David to the WH in order to sign the bill. Such was the timing and atmospherics of the situation.
Thompson’s flip remarks and wave of his hand regarding Terri has cost him my vote. Clueless? You got that right.
Terri's FAMILY wanted to keep her alive, her estranged and adulterous husband wanted to kill her for her money.
Okay then, here are a few things for all of you states rights, liberaltarian-anarchists to consider since you believe that the Founding Fathers didn't believe that the Bill of Rights was binding on the individual states:
Do you believe that an individual state does or should have the right to abridge your rights to free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to peaceably assemble or to petition the government?
Do you believe that an individual state does or should have the right to restrict your right to keep and bear arms?
Do you believe that an individual state does or should have the right force you to quarter the military in your home in times of peace?
Do you believe that an individual state does or should have the right to illegally search your home without a warrant?
Do you believe that an individual state does or should have the right to force you to testify against yourself or try you twice for the same crime or otherwise deny you due process?
Do you believe that an individual state does or should have the right take your property for public use without compensating you?
Do you believe that an individual state does or should have the right jail you indefinitely without a trial?
Do you believe that an individual state does or should have the right to deny you a jury of your peers?
Do you believe that an individual state does or should have the right to impose excessive bail, fines or punish you in a cruel and inhumane way?
I will presume that your answer to all of these questions is NO. It is axiomatic that when the Bill of Rights was written that these rights HAD TO BE binding on the states or else they were worthless. The Tenth Amendment talks about POWERS being reserved to the states, but it is clear that no government has the power to abridge rights.
So, you and the other liberaltarian-anarchists can believe whatever nonsense you like. You bring up states rights when it fits into your liberal agenda (killing the innocent, drugs, pornography, etc.), but at the same time you would (properly) resist a state that tried to take away any of the rights you care about.
You and your RINO Paul worshipping ilk ARE NOT conservatives, you are not even Republicans, you are a nuisance that perpetually tries to bastardize the Constitution to your own liberal and anarchistic ends.
#69 - Great post!
The Terri Schiavo case as indeed a travesty of Justice.
It was about a profoundly disabled woman who had done nothing wrong ordered to die by court.
As everyone knows, death row inmates get the following:
1. Trial by Jury
2. Competent Counsel
3. Appeals by the Federal Courts.
4. Protection from cruel and unsual treatment.
5. Get to be in the court room.
6. Appeals to the Florida Supreme Court.
Terri Schiavo didn’t get even one these rights.
A common axiom that existed in the Schiavo case was that
Terri Schiavo was treated with less rights and less protections under law than a convicted mass murderered.
As one lawyer once said:
“That interpretation of the Constitution whether you are strict construnctionalist or a libral constructionalist is known as the “Nutty” construction.”
The court appeard to follow the laws and Terri proceeded through the court to ultimate end but
There was no justice!
In the end, Terri was forced to undergo a process that would kill her (removal of a feeding tube).
The only difference between Terri and a death row inmate was that Terri was made to suffer for 13 long days before dying;
Something that would never been allowed for convicted death row inmate (cruel and unsual punishment).
Do you believe that an individual state does or should have the right to abridge your rights to free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to peaceably assemble or to petition the government?
Before Gitlow 1925 the states did have that right under the decision in Barron 1833. Have a problem with it? Take it up with the Framers
Do you believe that an individual state does or should have the right to restrict your right to keep and bear arms?
As a matter of fact, from a truly federalist original intent POV as the Second Amendment has not been incorporated against the states, they do have some leeway here unless the said state has passed legislation otherwise. But it is up in question as Parker will decide. With the majority of SCOTUS being 'conservative', I suppose it will be incorporated.
Do you believe that an individual state does or should have the right force you to quarter the military in your home in times of peace?
Never really addressed until the mid 60s. Griswold I believe. But until then that Amendment did not apply to the separate and sovereign states
Do you believe that an individual state does or should have the right to illegally search your home without a warrant?
Let's just name the cases eh? Else I'll be here educating you all night. Ker and Wolf
Do you believe that an individual state does or should have the right to force you to testify against yourself or try you twice for the same crime or otherwise deny you due process?
Britton and Malloy
Do you believe that an individual state does or should have the right take your property for public use without compensating you?
Now this one I'll stop on for a moment as this was the first of the Amendments to be incorporated on the separate and sovereign states. Barron clearly said no (you may want to read this one as it will give you insight into the Framers' position.) But Quincy Railway began its incorporation
Well there's the first five. I would bother going through the rest but the other three have been similarly incorporated during the 20th century. Suffice it to say, if we were to believe your views (and those of the nationalist libertarians who believe it or not I have even more disdain for), it wouldn't have taken multiple attempts in multiple cases for SCOTUS to divine this 'intent' of the 14th Amendment you say existed from the 1860s.
I will presume that your answer to all of these questions is NO. It is axiomatic that when the Bill of Rights was written that these rights HAD TO BE binding on the states or else they were worthless. The Tenth Amendment talks about POWERS being reserved to the states, but it is clear that no government has the power to abridge rights.
Wow, such absolute ignorance of your own nation's history. Tell you what eh? Go give Barron v. Baltimore a read. Come back with your findings. (Hint the Court determined the Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the separate and sovereign states)
You and your RINO Paul worshipping ilk ARE NOT conservatives, you are not even Republicans, you are a nuisance that perpetually tries to bastardize the Constitution to your own liberal and anarchistic ends
Awwww, isn't that just sweet. An post full of ignorance of your own nation's history ended with name calling. I feel so special.....
As a general rule, conservatives speak of the Founding Fathers, LIBERALS (like you) refer to them as “Framers.”
And you fail to understand that “Barron” and other such cases were ruled obsolete by the 14th Amendment. Now, I understand that liberals like you often don’t like the 14th Amendment, but it doesn’t matter IT IS the Constitution.
You and your liberal ilk love to point out Supreme Court decisions when you agree with them and ignore them when they don’t. But what you hate the most is that the STATES felt inclined to limit the powers of the STATES with the 14th Amendment. You seem to think that LIMITED government means NO government. You are anarchists and ignorant at that.
But as I said earlier, have fun worshiping the RINO version of Dennis Kucinich.
Sorry, I meant to ping you to this.
Instead Jeb Bush turned out to be the kind of man that sees a child drowning in the lake, reads a sign that says "No Swimming By Order of Sheriff" then does not jump in to save the kid because it's "illegal" and lets the kid drown.
Yep, the minute Terri died any hopes Jeb might have had for higher office disappeared.
The worst part is that he was fully empowered under the Florida Constitution to take custody of her by force if necessary. His failure was a clear violation of his own oath of office.
LOL, where is this rule? I've heard them called the Framers for years.
And you fail to understand that “Barron” and other such cases were ruled obsolete by the 14th Amendment. Now, I understand that liberals like you often don’t like the 14th Amendment, but it doesn’t matter IT IS the Constitution.
I would bother explaining again but since you didn't listen the first time, hell why bother?
You and your liberal ilk love to point out Supreme Court decisions when you agree with them and ignore them when they don’t. But what you hate the most is that the STATES felt inclined to limit the powers of the STATES with the 14th Amendment. You seem to think that LIMITED government means NO government. You are anarchists and ignorant at that.
At this point I should probably lose my temper at the absolute stupidity and consistent name calling in your posts, your failure to respond to the posts, your failure to present an argument but I realize this is now what makes up a large part of the Republican party. No wonder this nation has devolved to the point it has.
[BB clears throat, shakes head, laughs at the irony.]
Let’s not forget that your entire philosophy is based upon the absurd belief that the individual states SHOULD BE ALLOWED to violate the Bill of Rights if they wish.
FV SAYS: Isn't creating a culture of life after Terri's murder like shutting the barn door after the horse has already run out? and so on. Ignorant RINOS.
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.