Posted on 03/21/2005 11:31:10 AM PST by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888
I think the majority weight of opinion is against us on this one.
We would still have segregation if states' rights were observed or even a smaller country if states had the right to secede.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
OK, then I suppose you think we should go back and reinstate AlGore as US President since the US Supreme Court during the 2000 election broke our "founding principals" and stopped the STATE Democrats from manipulating the Florida votes.
And while we're at it, what the hell is the US Supreme Court doing reviewing STATE death penalty cases.
YOU ALSO ASK: "What in the world is Congress doing if it is not stripping more states' rights away?"
This answer is simple. Congress simply passed a bill which asked the US Federal Court to consider reviewing the case.
If the court decides the woman should be starved and dehydrated to death, then there's not much left to do. Name for me, if you can, the right which was stripped away from Florida.
But my reaction through all of this has been -- "what does the law say"?
From the US Constitution, Article. III.,Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
All the Congress did was get Terri's case before a federal judge. Why are so many interested in seeing her die a slow painful death?
Exactly what "law" did the state of Florida follow? Do the judges get to pick and choose what laws to follow? Or is it up to the "people" to decide? It is usually incumbent upon a guardian to do what is in the best interest of their ward. I fail to comprehend how starving someone is in their best interest.
Thank you for your reasoned statements. Surely you'll be called "liberals" because Rush Limbaugh's morning rant designated you so.
What I dislike is those who invoke the constitutional right to life that protects Terri yet want exceptions because they don't like inconvenient ramifications. Life is just as valuable conscious and unconscious. The No. 1 hypcorisy is the "living will" exception. As if a government sanctioned suicide part that makes the designated family member and health care persons co-conspirators in murder, free to do so because they have a piece of paper.
If people don't like ramifications, they shouldn't be playing around with the Constitution.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
It's pandering. If Congress acted on principle all parents with children like Terri would be empowered.
You are 100% correct. The majority do differ with me and this Congressman. And to top that off, most of us at FR who believe like me refuse to enter the discussion on these threads because of the emotional intensity of those "right to life" proponents. They just do not want to get ganged up on and flamed.
But the fact is, Republicans are acting like Democrats, byppassing the law, bypassing the perogative of another branch of government, and taking a piece of the Constitution and burning it.
Regardless of what one thinks about the Florida litigation, this has been one of the most heavily litigated cases in history, and the fact is, the final decision was a heavy decision and not taken lightly. The Florida courts decided that the law was such that the feeding tube should be removed.
Republicans are acting like Democrats here, and they are actively bypassing the separation of powers. Just think--we all complained about "judicial activism" and about wacko judges who are making law. Now, we have the judges interpreting law, and Republican are demanding that Congress bypass the Supreme Court of the United States. Talk about role reversal!
Who are those now that are making the Constitution a "living breathing document" that should be altered and molded according to public opinion? Not the liberal radical extremists but republican "conservatives" and the Republican Congress itself!
If so, that is NOT a state right, because it violates her right to live.
No, this isn't a states rights issue at all.
I'm not going to debate the merits of the Florida decision because I'm not an expert on Florida law or guardianship or anything else like that at all--but it's all beside the point, anyhow.
Florida has been litigating this case for the past several years. It's been to the Florida Supreme Court and everyone has had a bite at the apple to argue their particular side. Florida has made its ruling interpreting its law. You might not agree with Florida--I'm not so sure that I do--but it made its decision.
Now, just because Congress doesn't like that decision doesn't mean that it has the power to re-write Florida law--which it is trying to do here. Like it or not, there was due process here and Florida made its decision. I fail to see how (or why) Congress has the power to intervene here.
Hold on now!
It was the Supreme Court who reviewed the case, and Congress did not like the decision. So, COngress decided to pass a new law. That sounds like Democratic Party trickery to me!
Oh, you didn't know? Judicial activism is what occurs when a court makes a decision that you don't like. When you agree with the decision, the court is a paragon of judicial restraint.
Well, whether or not you feel congress had a right, I'm sure Terri's family is very happy they did what they could. It is beyond me why anyone thinks starving Terri to death would be doing her a favor.
But the fact is, Republicans are acting like Democrats, byppassing the law
Since when is upholding the Constitution bypassing the law? What particular law was "bypassed"?
But the fact is, Republicans are acting like Democrats, byppassing the law
Since when is upholding the Constitution bypassing the law? What particular law was "bypassed"?
I cannot agree. This goes way beyond "state's rights". I might be more sympathic to such an arguement if "state's rights" were honored in the case of abortion. They are not. It has been deemed by the "men in black" that states cannot forbide abortion - something not addressed in the Constitution; a privacy arguement is specious at best. Those men in black also recently said Texas sodomy laws were unconstitutional. By what convoluted reasoning did they come to that conclusion - certainly not by reading the Constitution as it was intended?
State's rights are only invoked when it favors a "left wing" agenda and the culture of death and legal perversion. When it works against that agenda, then they scream that the Federal trumps the State.
I have always come down on the side of "states rights", but this is not the real case here. The legislative and executive branchs of that State tried to save this woman. They were overruled by the judical. The Florida Supreme
Court is the most activist - out of control - court in the country.
This isn't really a "State's Rights" issue. The larger issue is about whether judical tyranny will be allowed to continue. So, if I have to be perceived as being against State's Rights - then so be it. Until those rights are trully followed then that is a false charge.
So have you abandoned rule of law entirely?
On what basis do we continue then?
That happened.
SCOTUS reviewed it(in your words, "stepped in to correct it") but Republicans did not like the SCOTUS' decision.
So, they bypassed the SCOTUS decision and pulled a play form the Democratic playbook and decided to write new law.
This is nothing to be proud of if you are a conservative.
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.