Posted on 02/26/2008 8:21:18 PM PST by SErtelt
by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor February 26, 2008
Cleveland, OH (LifeNews.com) -- Senator Barack Obama debated his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night and said his biggest mistake was voting to help save Terri Schiavo. Terri is the disabled Florida woman whose husband won the legal right to starve her to death.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
Then perhaps you would have a happier life on a different forum where the compromises you make with life issues would be welcome. We are a pro-life forum here and no matter who responds to your assertions, you just "don't get it". So long as you present these foggy mantras of the left and the death enthusiasts, you are inviting our response with truth and evidence since nothing you present is new, simply rehash from the loony left. You have pegged yourself to perfection here.
If I were you, I would be embarrassed to wind up a sounding board for these enemies of life, but, hey, keep it coming. It helps us show visitors the types of detractors we get, along with their dog-eared mantras even the brighter lefties scrapped. Your presence here does serve a useful purpose if you don't mind looking foolish to conservatives.
>>....and I am in no way 'anti-life' or a 'deathbot' - the kind of people using this language I try not to bother even having a conversation with.
You are right, I prefer the term I coined, bot fly. Learn the life of a bot fly and you will understand.(Apply preposition of your choice at the end of this sentence...)
What a load of BS!
There are a couple hundred threads a day posted on FR and there are quite a few that are about subjects I have no interest in, so I ignore them. But, to say that you don't really care about who lives and dies is the same as saying that you will do nothing to protect human life.
Moreover, society wasn't trying to "force" Terri to live, Terri was physically healthy. People were trying to keep her from being murdered.
Life is precious, but it's not so black and white. Is life spent in excruciating pain precious? Is it precious to the person experiencing the pain? Obviously not.
"It's not so black and white," there you go with the nuances again -- just like a liberal. I do find it ironic that Terri's murderers said she couldn't feel anything (except the "euphoria" of being dehydrated), so what is this "pain" you speak of?
The judicial process worked itself out - even all the way up to the Florida and U.S. Supreme Court. 'Justice' was served (due process), no matter what one's personal opinion.
1. Get your facts straight, because it's clear that you don't know what you are talking about.
2. Please furnish a link to the grand jury indictment where Terri was indicted for a capital crime as is specifically REQUIRED under our Constitution or a link to a SCOTUS ruling that permits the execution of someone without an indictment.
Notice he didn’t respond to me.
I am certainly not surprised. That might require actually addressing a few facts, instead of repeating the talking points of death promoters.
No, there was no due process for Terri.
She committed no crime.
The man who claimed to be her husband wanted her dead so he could legally live with his mistress, with an enhanced bank account.
Terri was murdered by court order.
Killing innocent people is murder.
When the govt endorses, approves, or enables someone’s murder, it is a violation of the constitution.
Barack Obama may be many things, but constitutional scholar he is not.
Maybe you should spend a little time studying your terms before you attempt to use them on a prolife discussion site like FR.
She committed no crime.
You all are framing her rights around your assertion that this was an execution for a crime? That's preposterous.
I'm perfectly happy here - there are numerous libertarian-leaning Freepers out there, I'm not the only one. And, there is a long history of balancing freedom and safety/life - it ISN'T a black and white issue, not matter how many times you repeat the opposite to yourself.
If I were you, I would be embarrassed to wind up a sounding board for these enemies of life, but, hey, keep it coming.
So do you label those who speak out against helmet-laws 'enemies of life'? What about those who support capital punishment? 'Enemies of life' - hard to find a larger strawman than that.
I believe those passages in the Constitution are right next to the ones condoning the drowning of kittens.
You pointed out a couple of lines in the Constitution about due process and appropriate legislation.
Yes, I did. You and other posters are pretending you're arguing the case before the Supreme Court--you're not. They REJECTED the case.
That does not answer my questions, it only raises new ones. Didn’t Terri have a right to a trial by a jury of her peers?
She didn't commit a crime, why would she have this right?
Didn’t Terri have protection against cruel and unusual punishment?
Yes.
What crime did Terri commit that warranted the death penalty?
She didn't receive the death penalty. She wasn't 'executed'. No I can see why some are so emotional about this - they believe Terri was executed for a crime she didn't commit. How ridiculous.
Back to square one:
The US Constitution forbids the federal govt, via the 5th amendment, from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without DUE PROCESS.
The 14th amendment forbids state and local govts, as well as federal govts, from the same action.
In other words,life, liberty, and property can only be taken in compensation for a crime-one which the person committed and, after his DUE Process rights have been exercised, and the person is convicted of such crime, only then can his life(capital punishment), liberty(incarceration), and/or property(fines, confiscation of material possessions,etc.)be taken from him.
You made the claim that Barack Obama was right in asserting that the action to attempt to defend her life, taken by the US Congress, in complete harmony with their sworn duty to defend the US Constitution, which requires them to defend innocent Americans, was a violation of the US Constitution.
Obama lied, and you agreed with him.
Execution is the killing of a person. Terri was killed. She was starved to death, and her parents were forbidden, via court order, from even giving her a sip of water.
Not only was she executed, it was done by the cruelest and most unusual of means.
And it happened because a tinpot probate judge, a local Republican poohbah, ORDERED that it WOULD be so.
Amendment 5, as you correctly state, relates to a person accused of a crime. Amendment 14 makes no mention of crime. Government regularly deprives life, liberty, and property with due process of law (property taxes, income taxes, safety regulations, etc.) A crime doesn't have to be committed for the principle to apply - only if you look at Amendment 5 in isolation.
from the debate transcript: RUSSERT: Senator Obama, any statements or vote you'd like to take back?
OBAMA: Well, you know, when I first arrived in the Senate that first year, we had a situation surrounding Terri Schiavo. And I remember how we adjourned with a unanimous agreement that eventually allowed Congress to interject itself into that decisionmaking process of the families.
It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped. And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better.
All I said is I applaud him for his reversal based on his knowledge of constitutional law.
Perhaps he was alluding to item 5 of Amendment 14:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
That's a very vague phrase, 'by appropriate legislation'. to pretend this is all black and white is just wrong.
In our system of Federalism, private domestic matters are the jurisdiction of the states, not the federal government. And legislatures can't override final, binding court decisions just because they don't like the results.
Your assertion that Obama 'lied' is meaningless - he expressed his opinion and I agreed with him, that doesn't make us liars.
execution:
3. The act or an instance of putting to death or being put to death as a lawful penalty.
Don't you mean 'murder' by the state - like the Nazi and Soviets did?
This we can agree on - there ought to have been a better and less potentially painful means.
And it happened because a tinpot probate judge, a local Republican poohbah, ORDERED that it WOULD be so.
The system isn't perfect, nor ever will it be.
Then what does THIS mean?:
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In our system of Federalism, private domestic matters are the jurisdiction of the states, not the federal government.
What about the Federal Laws for Civil Rights on the Basis of Disability or the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Under theFlorida Constitution:
All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, . . . No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.
And legislatures can't override final, binding court decisions just because they don't like the results.
But, under the Florida Constitution, the governor can:
The governor may initiate judicial proceedings in the name of the state against any executive or administrative state, county or municipal officer to enforce compliance with any duty or restrain any unauthorized act.
Your assertion that Obama 'lied' is meaningless - he expressed his opinion and I agreed with him, that doesn't make us liars.
You've proven yourself to be a liberaltarian anarchist, it's not surprising that you will agree with liberals far more than you will with conservatives.
It doesn't matter if they "put her to sleep" peacefully. It's still murder. I find your blase attitude toward her killing to be repulsive.
The system isn't perfect, nor ever will it be.
Since when in America is "the system" allowed to kill innocent people??
The libertarians wanted her dead because they didn't want the federal and state government's again, setting a precedent of intruding on other people's lives.
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.