It's *very* obvious that his is not a reasoned opinion based on the law, but rather, a personal opinion based on a liberal agenda.
I find it anger provoking that this fabricated "right to privacy" (I do realize that it's in the FL State Constitution), is taking precedence over due process, and a host of other Federal and State Constitutional rights. These corrupt judges have recourse to the craziest invented precedents, which they use to prevent even the Governor's privilege of venue!
If the "right to privacy" existed years ago, the Dred Scott case would have never been overturned, if this "right's" *supremacy* had been upheld, as it is today. Any other claim of any other right must take a back seat to privacy, and any legal argument to the contrary just never suffices. The libs see to that.
The liberal courts are hijacking this country. We've recently seen the MA Supreme Court establish the "constitutional right" of gays to marry. I think that Jeb Bush must make a stand, or else the States will fall, one by one, issue by issue, into a totalitarianism ruled by an elite composed of liberal judges.
If Jeb doesn't step up to the plate, here and now, concerning Terri, who, and in which state, and regarding which issue, will?
Thank you for your kind words.
You're very welcome. :o)
Let me emphasize that I agree with your comments concerning our judicial branch of government, and I believe, in order to smoke these tyrants out, and expose them for what they really are, more is need than condemnation of what one believes are the “craziest invented precedents” judges make.
These “precedent” setting decisions must be identified, analyzed and documented in such a manner as to establish, beyond any doubt, they represent the personal whims and fancies of the judge or judges who have created them, and, that these precedent setting decisions are not within the meaning of our constitution or permissible under the rules which govern our constitutional system. This is our job as a freedom loving people.
We have written constitutions, state and federal, but if we, those who have created these documents for our protection from folks in government, are not capable of understanding and defending the intent with which we adopted them, they become a meaningless effort on our part in controlling the actions of folks in government.
Let us recall the words of James Madision, speaking to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788: There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
Indeed, precedent setting decisions of the court, which are not in harmony with the intent with which the people have adopted an article, section or clause of their state or federal constitutions, have been the most perfidious vehicle by which the court has engaged in a silent subjugation of our constitutional system…a system intentionally adopted by the people to protect themselves from folks in government!
And why has this been allowed? Because the most fundamental principle of constitutional law, enforcing the intent of a constitution, as contemplated by those who framed it and the people who adopted it, is allowed to be repeatedly ignored by the courts…the people have been derelict in their duty to understand the importance of this most fundamental rule, and enforcing it by always documenting the intent of their constitution when the court decides to substitute its personal intent for that of the people’s.
Now, with regard to the right to “privacy” which you mentioned, and is found in Article 1, Section 23, of Florida’s Constitution, the irrefutable fact is, the amendment was adopted by the people of Florida with a specific intent which had absolutely nothing to do with the “privacy” of an individual wanting to refuse medical treatment, or a husband alleging it is his wife’s wishes to be starved to death and seeking a court order to do so. These questions have nothing to do with the intent for which the people adopted Article 1, Section 23, of Florida’s Constitution, and such question are to be litigated, if the occasion arises, under the rules which govern written wills or verbal declaratory statements concerning ones wishes as applicable in Terri’s case. Unfortunately, in Terri’s case, there is insufficient evidence to establish what Terri’s wishes are, and so, as the SCOTUS has suggested, the proper course of action is to err on the side of life!
In regard to Article 1, Section 23, of Florida’s Constitution, which has been inappropriately applied in Terri’s case by Baird, Greer and Felos, the amendment was intended, as historical records prove, to forbid folks in government from snooping upon them with wire taps and other such means as was done by folks in government during the Watergate incident. The Amendment was adopted shortly after the Watergate incident, and for the above purpose stated.
Although I have not yet confirmed the following, I have been informed by someone who, in 1980, was just starting to get involved in Florida’s politics in Tallahassee, and although the party was not privy to the legislative debates during the adoption of Article 1, Section 23, the party distinctly remembers and has written to me the following:
"I do distinctly remember Carole Griffin of Big Bend Florida Right to Life and State Senator Dempsey Barron, among others, who stated to the press that the abortion issue was not in the legislative debate regarding the constitutional amendment when the T.W. decision was released by the FSC.
Given those statements, presuming that they are accurate, you make a very good case regarding this issue in your multiple postings…..Paul”
In my article titled: JUDICIAL TYRANNY: FROM PARENTAL RIGHTS TO TERRI’S LAW I have provided a documented account of how Justice Shaw, starting in the T.W. case, substituted his personal desires as being the intent of the people when they adopted Article 1, Section 23 of Florida’s Constitution, and in the same case, created a precedent setting procedure to latter enforce his personal desires, instead of the will of the people for which they adopted Florida’s privacy amendment!
Justice Shaw, which is also documented in the article, then went on and applied his procedure in a latter case, the Women’s Health Case, striking down parental rights over their children, claiming he was obligated to follow a previous ruling of the court [the T.W. case in which he issued the written opinion!]
And now, relying upon an interpretation of the intent of Article 1, Section 23 which was not that of the people’s when they adopted the amendment, and is nothing more than an interpretation created by Justice Shaw which is nowhere supported in the historical debates when the amendment was adopted, Felos and Baird are fraudulently using the amendment to allege Terri‘s Law is unconstitutional when it is not, as I have pointed out in my article titled Did FL Judge trash constitution in Terri Schiavo case?
Having stated the above, Lauren, I am very disappointed to realize that there appears to be little interest in the constitutional aspects of this case and the step by step procedure by which Florida’s judges have perverted our constitutional system in order to carry out their personal agenda. Perhaps those who might be interested have been conditioned to believe the constitution is too complicated for them to understand, and may only be understood by those who it was meant to control. And so, the servants have become the master of those who have employed them.
Why is it that there so little interest in the rules we the people have established to control folks in government and protect our lives, liberty and rights associated with property ownership?
Sincerely,
John William Kurowski
American Constitutional Research Service
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness."___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas