Posted on 04/05/2005 2:22:08 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
"...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:
Nice FResearch!
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.
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.
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?
Sorry to hear about your epiphany. Fortunately, you dont seem too broken up.
I only wish OPH was still around to comment. /s
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"...
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?I believe that the reason some advance directives were potentially unenforcible is that they might contain an express seven year term of enforcibility.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.
http://aging.dhr.georgia.gov/DHR-DAS/DHR-DAS_Publications/LivingWill.pdf <-- Page 5
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.
But what does the law say in Nebraska!?
http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/laws/index.htm <-- Nebraska Statutes & Constitution
Oh, and why not Uzbekistan?
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 ;-)
Indeed. Why not?
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.
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.
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 response never addresses the horrific idea of ignoring what we believe a person would have wanted, despite later technology or legislation or whatever.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.
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?
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.