Replies

You were saying — “I don’t disagree at all. Perhaps the state of Florida had an interest, but not the Feds, at least according to my copy of the Constitution.”

Well, with the Declaration of Independence stating that we have inalienable rights granted from God, our Creator —

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... “

... and the Constitution is for protecting those rights, among other things — I would say protecting life is certainly a fundamental goal of the highest order for the Federal Government, given that it’s in the first few sentences of the founding of our country and government!

The government needs to intervene, in all cases, to preserve life, given that this is a right granted from our Creator God.

Regards,
Star Traveler

Well, with the Declaration of Independence stating that we have inalienable rights granted from God, our Creator — “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... “

The strange literalism you wish to attach to the Declaration is completely ignorant and wrongheaded.

The Declaration, although a document declaring the rights of man as having a divine source, is not a fundamental legal document. It's legal content, what little there is, is never brought into a court case because it is and always was intended to be a declaration of the religious basis by which men can overturn the rule of tyrant kings and, in particular, the rule of the tyrant, King George III. At the time, the state churches of Europe and in the colonies taught, virtually without exception, that the right of kings had a divine origin and that it was a sin to rebel against the king whicfh God Himself had appointed to be your dictator. This was, in fact, itself a gross misuse of holy scripture as the Bible itself is not a political document and does not favor monarchs over democracies or republics or any other form of government.

That is and was the only purpose of the Declaration. Stop distorting history by pretending that the Declaration is or ever was binding upon our federal or state governments in the same sense that the Bill of Rights is.

You people have a flat-earth view of the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and you clearly know nothing about any of them.

I don't think you could even get Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia to agree with your strained notion that the Declaration is binding legal document and applicable to a medical case.

Well, I've got news for you. It wasn't the Queen of England who deprived Terri Schiavo of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and without representation in Parliament, a key reason for our revolt against the Crown. Therefore, the Declaration is moot in regard to this tragic case.