What I find odd is that most of us at FR believe in our founding principles, especially "States' Rights". This case was argued repeatedly over many years in Florida.
What in the world is Congress doing if it is not stripping more states' rights away, something most members here at Free Republic normally get very angry about?
SCOTUS recently used European law as a basis to strike down the death penalty for jueveniles. That took a piece out of our sovereignty.
Then SCOTUS actually upheld states' rights by rejecting a a request to hear the Schiavo case, but Tom DeLay and other Republicans bypassed SCOTUS by passing a new law.
It is clear that all three branches of government are doign their part to strike down the U.S. Constitution and strip rights away from the states.
Yes, the Terri Schiavo case is sad, but I do not see how supporting more destruction of states' rights is a good thing for those of us who are conservatives and believe in limited government and states' rights.
I would like to ask those of you (of which there are many) to explain how you justify supporting putting the feeding tube back in Terri, but at the same time you believe in states' rights (normally, that is--not in this case). If you believe that the Florida litigation was complete and thorough, and took ALL facts into account, then your comments would be interesting. However, if you honestly believe Terri said "I want to live" and that she is not brain dead, then there is no need to respond since that explains your position on face value.
What would be interesting is to hear from those of you who believe the Florida litigation was complete and covered all the facts, and that Terri has no cognitive ability (as the medical professionals have testified), yet you still believe that Congress is right to bypass SCOTUS and it is right to strip states' rights away. These are the people I would like to hear from.
It is hard to argue with Congressman Boehlert--Congress has no business getting involved, unless you do not believe in the separation of powers and states' rights.
I look forward to some good comments, and being that this is an emotionally charged issue, I hope that we all respect each othes opinion.
Thank you.
It's odd that I ever find myself in agreement with Boehlert when he is at odds with other Republican legislators. But, this time, I believe he is right. I feel sorry for Mrs. Schiavo's family and for her and their situation. I'm not even arguing that removal of the feeding tube is the right thing. But I don't think this is an issue for Congress.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Your post, in many ways, sums up my feelings about this exactly. Listening to Rush and others on our side rationalize what Congress has done takes me aback. I respect everyone's opinion and I too wish her husband felt differently about this.
But my reaction through all of this has been -- "what does the law say"?
Those on our side living off emotions in this instance is striking to me because it is normally our side that poke wholes at the left for their hyperbole and emotion. Please, don't anyone here get me wrong I don't "want the bitch to die" as some have charged that people that feel the way I do think; I just think the law should take its course.
Some of us remember that the right to life is self-evident and that there are limits to states' rights.
I agree with you in large part, but don't expect to get too far on here. I think the majority weight of opinion is against us on this one.
Even when the State is clearly in the wrong? Even when states follow morally reprehensible laws, or state laws which lead to reprehensible situations? States should have autonomy from the Federal government but it's not an absolute.
We would still have segregation if states' rights were observed or even a smaller country if states had the right to secede.
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.
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.
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 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.
I could care less what you and Sherwood Boehlert think. We have an irresponsible, out of control, black robed punk in Florida who wants to kill off Terri. In such a situation it's great that Congress is going to try to nullify his rulings.
But remember. All Congress has done is throw this case into Federal court. No one knows what this Clinton appointed judge will do.
Second, the Federal Consitution specifically empowers Congress to establish the jurisdiction of the Courts. In fact, on numerous occasions, Congress has done just that.
Your a brave person to post this viewpoint on this forum ;)
To some, the "Right to Life" transcends all other considerations - I do not agree with this. The Florida courts considered all the evidence and came to a conclusion. From what I have read, their consideration was thorough, and they reached a verdict they considered to be in accordance with the state laws and constitution. Even though I do not personally believe Terri should be allowed to die, I can't argue with the process that allowed the courts to come to this conclusion. I also believe that the evidence will be considered in the same way by the Federal courts and they will probably reach the same conclusion.
The actions of Congress in this case are an inexcusable breach of the separation of powers, and I can't help feeling there is a significant element of "grandstanding" involved.
Oh, but individuals have inalienable rights which the feds are obliged to protect, along with their Constiutional rights.
For instance the "right to an abortion" is a perverse reading of the Constitution and should not be a federal matter. The "right to life" however is certainly a federal matter.
This thread has become the "poor us, those who disagree with us are mind-numbed Rushbots...oh, and by the way, let's be civil about this!" thread.
If one feels the duty of congress when watching a person who is NOT on life support be starved to death is to shrug, then I can only lump him/her in with the libertarian types who think the poor should be starved to death. And no, it has nothing to do with religious beliefs, so you can keep that one in your quiver.
The congress's duty seems to be to uphold the law when it is being invented on the spot. The law says that all one has to do to be starved to death in this situation is fill out a piece of paper. THAT is the compromise. If that's not done, it seems to be criminal of the congress to let a killing happen just because a state is doing it.
I suppose if a state court decided a parent could suffocate his child with a pillow, you'd be pissed off if DeLay and company dared suggest this should be looked at by a federal court, which protects ALL rights.
If my state gets to decide I should be starved to death, when I've left no legal document to that effect, that's news to me.
LOL You gotta be supremely naive to believe M Schiavo's claim that Terri once mentioned in passing that she did not want to be kept alive by extraordinary measures. M Schiavo's hearsay is the foundation of this entire case. But you look at this ghoul and get conned by him. Did Bill Clinton also con you and exude credibility?
Schiavo has lucked out by getting death dealing judges on his case but hopefully the Federal judge will make more sane rulings. A family loves Terri and wants to care for her. Yet her ghoul of a husband cannot let go. Cannot let Terri go into the loving, caring arms of her parents and siblings. Something stinks here. No way is anything M Schiavo says to be taken at face value. He has hidden reasons why he wants Terri dead.
The florida litigation was not complete. As an attorney who has handled such guaradian cases in the past, there is much in this case procedurally that is not correct.
The legislature did its job in this case.
Every judge will tell a loosing party in the trial court to either appeal or write to the legislature to "change the law".
In this case that is exactly what has happened. It IS the place of the legislature to legislate. They made a law that was well within their authority (disregard teh democrat talking point absurdity confusing criminal law here).
The ONLY thing that this law has done is give authority to the federal courts to examine this case. This is proper. It is proper to ask why Judge Greer excluded certain evidence, it is proper to hear alternate testimony. It is not proper to be selective in evidence, it is not proper to appoint a GAL who is more ecconomist than advocate. It is also proper to question the impartiality of Attorney Felos.
We do give others federal review.
I think Delay said it best, "she is one of us." Just because a person has reached a point,temp or permanent, that a guardian is required does not mean their life is meaningless.
All guardianship cases are agony.
The federal judge can find there is nothing wrong with the state court, the federal judge could find something IS wrong. It may be only that the federal judge allows the mother and father to be there as the daughter is starved to death. We don't yet know this clinton appointees decision.
We DO know whatever the decision it WILL be appealed.
What about the supremacy clause?
And BTW - you don't "bypass" SCOTUS by passing "new law". That is the way it works. Congress acted on the behalf of an individual's rights which were being trampled.