VANITY NOTICE: I've just learned that I am an "EXTREMIST!" WOO HOO!! [This is NOT an OPUS]

FreeRepublic.com | April 5th, 2005 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

VANITY NOTICE: I've just learned that I am an "EXTREMIST!" WOO HOO!!

Nicest compliment I've received in a long time.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Y'all might want to be careful who you hang out with. If you are pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-constitution, pro-Liberty, pro-America and post to FreeRepublic.com, you risk being labeled as an "extremist."

That puts you in the company of extremist folks like George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, & Co.

As extremists, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Speaking of quotes from our extremist forefathers, someone sent me these this morning:

George Washington - "..And let us indulge with caution the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion... Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle."

John Adams - "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

James Madison - "We've staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future ...upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded."

Noah Webster - "No truth is more evident to any mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people."

See you at the March for Justice!!

May God continue to bless and watch over America and all her extremists!

[FBD]

I received the following email today from the University of Virginia, who have an ongoing research project on the Papers of James Madison.

"...the project has collected more than 25,000 copies of documents related to Madison's life--including letters, essays, notes, diaries, account books, ledgers, wills, legal papers, and inventories."
http://www.virginia.edu/pjm/home.html

To:
jmadison@virginia.edu

Is this an accurate and verifiable quote, by James Madison?
It is displayed on numerous websites:
"We've staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future ...upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded."

Their response:

---

Re: "Checking the accuracy of a Madison quote displayed on many websites"
To: "FBD"
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005


Dear Mr. (FBD)

To our knowledge Madison never wrote these words. We've
never found anything remotely like this in our files and
the very idea is inconsistent with Madison's views on
religion and government, views which he expressed in
public and private throughout his life.

Best,

David #######

jmadison@virginia.edu

[Right Wing Professor]

Nice FResearch!

[lugsoul]

Sweet, FBD. Nice to get an official confirmation of what I already knew... I've seen Barton's dissembling trying to defend his use of the quote, and it was obvious he had no authority for the quote.

[joesnuffy]

Truth is Truth even if no one beleives it.

A Lie is a Lie even if everyone believes it.

Here's to you Mr. Robinson...may the Lord over us all
bless you and keep you..

And may you always have loyal friends to watch your six.

[notpoliticallycorewrecked]

ROTFLOL

I always knew that you had it in you Jim. It was just waiting for the RIGHT moment to appear.

I have to ask, so was it in the MSM that pinned the label or was in the local press?

[skeeter]

Late to the party - again.

Sorry to hear about your epiphany. Fortunately, you dont seem too broken up.

I only wish OPH was still around to comment. /s

[Gondring]

The courts and Mr. Schiavo could, and did, make suggestions of what Mrs. Schiavo *would have* wanted.

If they'd believed that Mrs. Schiavo would have wanted to live and receive treatment, it would be ridiculous to say, "that therapy wasn't available back then so it doesn't count"...

[Cboldt]

If they'd believed that Mrs. Schiavo would have wanted to live and receive treatment, it would be ridiculous to say, "that therapy wasn't available back then so it doesn't count"...

Your hypothetical doesn't undermine my contention. The base for concluding that Terri's statement was unfairly construed is that the colloquial term "life support" did not (and probably does not, today, for the majority of people) include the basic necessities of food and water, even if given via tube or IV. The difference in construction (imputing to her comment, without the benefit of asking her, the inclusion of food and water) makes a life/death difference.

The court's construction of Terri's comments used statutory language, which Terri did not see or reasonably foresee. Assuming Terri said, "I don't want to be on life support," the burden was put on Terri's family, to prove that she didn't mean to include basic care.

In Georgia, WRITTEN advance directives prepared before 1987 were rendered possibly unenforcible.

Once I've Signed a Living Will, How Long Does it Last and Can I Change My Mind?

Yes you may change your mind after signing a Living Will. As long as your Living Will was signed after 1987, it is good until you revoke it, which means you indicate that we no longer wish to have one. If we do wish to revoke our Living Will, we should tear up our copy and notify other people (family members and doctors) who also have a copy. If your Living Will was actually made and signed before 1987, it is a good idea to talk with an attorney or someone else knowledgeable about this law to find out whether or not you need to prepare another Living Will.

Understanding the Georgia Living Will
by: Georgia Department of Human Resources, Division of Aging Services

http://aging.dhr.georgia.gov/DHR-DAS/DHR-DAS_Publications/LivingWill.pdf <-- Page 5

I believe that the reason some advance directives were potentially unenforcible is that they might contain an express seven year term of enforcibility.

The present model forms of advance directive contain express recitations regarding food and water. If common construction of "withhold life support" included "withhold food and water," then the food and water recitations would not be required. The model forms don't recite life support such as dialysis. Why not? Because there is near universal (if not literally universal) agreement that "life support" includes the application of a dialysis machine.

The object of the law is to comply with the patient's wishes. Changing a material term of art behind the patient's back may result in NOT following the patient's wishes.

I wonder if a written advance directive that does NOT recite "you are directed to withhold food and water" is construed as an order to withhold food and water.

[Gondring]

In Georgia[...]

But what does the law say in Nebraska!?

[Cboldt]

But what does the law say in Nebraska!?

http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/laws/index.htm <-- Nebraska Statutes & Constitution

[Gondring]

Nebraska Statutes & Constitution

Oh, and why not Uzbekistan?

[infocats]

...and post to FreeRepublic.com, you risk being labeled as an "extremist."

That puts you in the company of extremist folks like George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, & Co.

Gosh, I had no idea that they posted to the Free Republic also ;-)

[Cboldt]

Oh, and why not Uzbekistan?

Indeed. Why not?

[Gondring]

Glad we agree that it's just as irrelevant as your example, Georgia.

[Cboldt]

Glad we agree that it's just as irrelevant as your example, Georgia.

The fact that parts of my reply were irrelevant doesn't cause your rebuttal to address the relevant parts of it.

[Gondring]

The fact that parts of my reply were irrelevant doesn't cause your rebuttal to address the relevant parts of it.

What a wonderful Clintonian defense! The fact is, you based your argument on something totally irrelevant, and can't make a compelling argument from the actual facts. Your response never addresses the horrific idea of ignoring what we believe a person would have wanted, despite later technology or legislation or whatever. A health-care proxy who is not allowed to make decisions is useless. We MUST start respecting individuals and their preferences, not just treat people as a mass of "life" without any rights of their own to decide for themselves or have others act on their behalf based on current information.

[Cboldt]

The fact is, you based your argument on something totally irrelevant, and can't make a compelling argument from the actual facts.

Puhleeze. Here's a redeaux ...

If they'd believed that Mrs. Schiavo would have wanted to live and receive treatment, it would be ridiculous to say, "that therapy wasn't available back then so it doesn't count"...

Your hypothetical doesn't undermine my contention. The base for concluding that Terri's statement was unfairly construed is that the colloquial term "life support" did not (and probably does not, today, for the majority of people) include the basic necessities of food and water, even if given via tube or IV. The difference in construction (imputing to her comment, without the benefit of asking her, the inclusion of food and water) makes a life/death difference.

The court's construction of Terri's comments used statutory language, which Terri did not see or reasonably foresee. Assuming Terri said, "I don't want to be on life support," the burden was unfairly put on Terri's family, to prove that she didn't mean to include basic care.

The object of the law is to comply with the patient's wishes. Changing a material term of art behind the patient's back may result in NOT following the patient's wishes.

I wonder if a written advance directive that does NOT recite "you are directed to withhold food and water" is construed as an order to withhold food and water.

Your response never addresses the horrific idea of ignoring what we believe a person would have wanted, despite later technology or legislation or whatever.

That is correct. My response was that your "advancement of the art" argument didn't undermine my contention that Terri's express wish could have been misconstrued.

A health-care proxy who is not allowed to make decisions is useless.

A written directive, or an oral express directive is also useless, if the terms of art in it can be materially changed after the person expresses their wishes.

We MUST start respecting individuals and their preferences

And how does misconstruction of express wishes accomplish that objective?