Posted on 07/06/2005 10:50:06 AM PDT by 8mmMauser
I don't normally go for amendments to the Constitution when the Supremes will just write laws around them anyway.
I am sure the other side can show us where she is drooling all over herself.
bump for later
Facts are easily sloughed over by those types. They shape their response based on their preconception, or whatever is given to them to recite.
8mm
"Funny how all of those arguments were struck down on appeal."
ACTIVIST judges.
I rest my case.
Well just from a generic look at Florida's Constitution (and mind you I've only looked at it once or twice) it seems to be set up very much like the US Constitution. I do see however a power I don't remember Bush availing himself of in this case, that of bringing a case against 'any executive or administrative state, county or municipal officer to enforce compliance with any duty or restrain any unauthorized act.' Don't know if it would have worked but otherwise, he really doesn't have that much power. From a separation of powers standpoint within the three branches, the only hope for her was the state legislature. You want to blame someone, blame the Florida state legislature for not passing a bill that would have protected her. One that could have stood against the Florida Supreme Court. Although I noticed something I'll address in a moment so that may have been a moot point.
It should not have been necessary and could have been the bad thing that galls you, that the Executive and Congress interfered. Whether correct or not, that was an ineffective attempt to restore some semblence of balance already usurped by the Judiciary. We-the-people blinked, and the Supremes stood fast as if our rulers.
Now this is where we agree I have the problem. Follow me here, sometimes I'm not that coherent ;). The issue as I see it is that the Executive and Congress were involving themselves in a state judicial decision, not a federal judicial decision. If their actions would have led to a reversal of a state decision, in effect it would have broken down yet another barrier between the states and the federal government.
But rereading Federalist #81 (excellent read along with #78) I find another issue I believe that was almost crossed
It is not true, in the second place, that the Parliament of Great Britain, or the legislatures of the particular States, can rectify the exceptionable decisions of their respective courts, in any other sense than might be done by a future legislature of the United States. The theory, neither of the British, nor the State constitutions, authorizes the revisal of a judicial sentence by a legislative act. Nor is there any thing in the proposed Constitution, more than in either of them, by which it is forbidden. In the former, as well as in the latter, the impropriety of the thing, on the general principles of law and reason, is the sole obstacle. A legislature, without exceeding its province, cannot reverse a determination once made in a particular case; though it may prescribe a new rule for future cases. This is the principle, and it applies in all its consequences, exactly in the same manner and extent, to the State governments, as to the national government now under consideration.Even Hamilton (as much as it suprises me considering his views at the Convention) recognizes there would be state decisions and federal decisions and that line would not, could not, be crossed.
T'wit, isn't that so sad, but so true?
All: Ping to post 757.
Scientology
8mm
Re: your post 760, great letter - hope Gibson, et al reads it.
The low potassium reading was not the only blood abnormality of interest. Terri was acidotic. Lactic acidosis usually involves a lot of exertion (or bad circulation in elderly patients). How this could have occurred if she just got up to go to the bathroom is, to say the least, unexplained.
Cardiac arrest was due to anoxia. What caused the anoxic episode has been the whole question all along. Lactic acidosis is consistent with Terri struggling frantically to breathe with her oxygen cut off. The fact that anoxic damage occurred in her brain but not in her heart, liver or kidneys is also suggestive of where the oxygen was cut off.
And Martha Stewart went to jail for nonsensical whimsy.
If I get up to go to the bathroom at 4:30 in the morning, stress is not one of my problems.
So do I:
Prosecutor: No criminality in Schiavo collapse. Bush ends inquiry
Thank you for the explanation and analysis. Sounds like once the process started, we were damned no matter which way it went. And Terri was in the middle.
The Executive and Congress intervene and the barrier is broken. They don't intervene, and the Supremes rule.
Interestingly, Judge Greer's court hounded me while there and when I returned to Maine, they threatened me if I could not prove that in Maine my car license tags were in accordance with Maine law.
The folks down there are a scary bunch. I lived many places in the world and the court system there reminded me of third world dictatorships where I lived.
Ok, then, buh bye. Nothing more to see, time to move on.
They did pass bill to protect her. The will of the people was denied by the courts.
The theory, neither of the British, nor the State constitutions, authorizes the revisal of a judicial sentence by a legislative act. Nor is there any thing in the proposed Constitution, more than in either of them, by which it is forbidden. In the former, as well as in the latter, the impropriety of the thing, on the general principles of law and reason, is the sole obstacle. A legislature, without exceeding its province, cannot reverse a determination once made in a particular case; though it may prescribe a new rule for future cases. This is the principle, and it applies in all its consequences, exactly in the same manner and extent, to the State governments, as to the national government now under consideration.
They were in effect trying to reverse a determination once made in a particular case. Now if Florida does right by its citizens, the state legislature will pass a law preventing this from happening again.
I do, however, think he belongs in the Nicely Nicely Home for the Incurably Weird.
We're not talking about you, are we?
How do we know why she what she was going to the bathroom? Maybe she had a headache from stress, maybe she felt sick to her stomach from stress. And hasn't everyone said she was stressed out over not getting pregnant, and had an argument with Michael earlier that day over spending too much at the hair dresser? Everyone has said that Michael was so controlling and mean. Wouldn't that cause her some stress?But if you don't want to read the article, that's fine. Keep that closed mind, it suits you.
Please clarify. You stated they should of passed a bill. They did. Now you change the subject?
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.