Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Terri and executive power (Terri Schiavo and Executive Power)
RenewAmerica.US ^ | March 22, 2005 | David Quackenbush

Posted on 03/23/2005 7:40:30 AM PST by topher

http://www.renewamerica.us/news/050322quackenbush.htm

Terri and executive power

March 22, 2005
David Quackenbush
Declaration Foundation & Declaration Alliance Senior Scholar

The case of Terri Schiavo is disturbing at a constitutional level, because -- although both the governor and the legislature have determined that court-ordered starvation contravenes Terri Schiavo's basic rights, given the circumstances -- yet many are acting as if the only word to be spoken on these deep constitutional matters is that uttered by the courts.

But this is a deep error regarding the nature of republican self-government.

Separation of powers

Have we forgotten that we have a separation of powers, that judicial orders are not self-effectuating, and that the other two branches have both a responsibility and an obligation to see that the Constitution is rightly respected?

Each branch has a responsibility to respect the Constitution and our nation's laws, but the executive has a particular responsibility to respect the Constitution and laws in the press of events as they occur.

Bear in mind that the judicial branch is concerned primarily with preserving justice -- the correspondence of our lives to the Constitution and the laws -- in the past. The judicial branch is primarily retrospective.

The legislative branch is concerned primarily with prospective justice -- conceiving and enacting laws that will perfect the society's pursuit of justice in the future.

But the executive is pre-eminently concerned with ensuring that the political community respects the law, the Constitution, and the fundamental principles of that Constitution, in the only moment that really exists -- the present. The executive acts, he does not judge what has been done, or consider what should be done in the future.

If the executive deems that something is occurring now -- whether by mandate of the court or not -- that violates that basic premises of the Constitution, he is bound by his oath to take action. Acting is what executives do.

The matter of Terri Schiavo

Right now, Terri Schindler-Schiavo is being deliberately starved. Thus, the Florida executive, Jeb Bush, is bound by his oath to act now in accordance with his conscientious understanding of what the Constitution and the laws of Florida require, because the judge in the case has no executive power.

We have forgotten that among the powers that are separated is the power of the execution of the law, reserved to the executive. The notion that judges' orders are self-executing is a dangerous notion that violates the whole understanding of the separation of powers.

There are reasons that the power of executing the law is restricted to one branch of the government. Among those reasons are considerations of efficiency and effectiveness. But above all, the power to act is concentrated in the executive so that the people can concentrate their vigilance on the executive.

The covert assumption of the executive power by the judiciary in the Schiavo case has become an ideal example of the judiciary's continuing assault on the moral sense and sensibility of our people, an assault that continues, in this case, in contravention of the will of the people as expressed in Florida in the state legislature, by the governor, now by the Congress of the United States.

With that in mind, Jeb Bush has the perfect right and obligation to act to prevent this violation of Terri Schindler-Schiavo's basic constitutional rights, and to do so in such a way as to prevent what amounts to judicially-mandated murder. And I hope that he will understand that responsibility and act, while the Congress and the legislature continue to take the steps that they can, to try to make sure that this does not continue.

The citizens of Florida, and of the United States, should support Governor Bush by encouraging him to exercise energetically his constitutional responsibility to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Judicial dictatorship

Unfortunately, in the Schiavo case, the judiciary has set its face against what the society, the people, the legislature, and the Governor believe is constitutional right. The question is, "Do the judges get to dictate, in an instance like this, what shall be our understanding of basic rights and moral requirements?"

The answer to that question is "no." No branch of government gets to dictate what the outcome will be, by itself, in America.

And in this particular case, with the other branches ranged against them, the judges actually have no power or authority, and it is the executive who can act. Governor Bush needs simply to intervene, to protect this woman's life, to look the court in the eye and say, as President Andrew Jackson did, "You've made your ruling. You enforce it." They can't enforce it, of course, because they have no executive power to do so.

When judges act in a way that contravenes the conscience of the executive, they forfeit the cooperation of the executive -- and that is how the Founders intended it to be. It is about time that the executive reasserted that truth of our constitutional system, and Florida would be a great place to start. The courts do not get to act like little tyrants, in this country.

We are supposed to have a system based on three equal branches, and yet what we are seeing in this case, as in many others, is a judicial dictatorship, where the will of the people as represented in the majority in the legislature, in the duly elected executive in the governorship, is having no efficacy whatsoever to protect the rights of this individual.

Keeping things in perspective

Some conservatives might be concerned about urging the executive to act against a court order, because of a laudable concern to limit executive power. But our Founders understood that the place to limit executive power was in its illicit exercise, not its essential and necessary exercise. As we contact our leaders in this case, it is very important to show understanding of the fact that we acknowledge that they have an independent responsibility under the Constitution of both Florida and the United States to act in defense of basic constitutional integrity and rights.

Conservatives must urge Jeb Bush to take action, so that Terri Schindler-Schiavo will not be starved to death by the courts, because he has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of Florida. This woman has a positive right, under the Florida constitution, to defend her life, and that right is being utterly disregarded, and destroyed -- and Governor Bush knows it.

Given his oath as an executive, Governor Bush has a distinct and clear responsibility to defend Terri's constitutional rights in this case, regardless of whether any court is willing to do so, because he, as The Executive, is a separate and equal branch, and must be governed by his own will and conscience when it comes to his oath.

Governor Bush co-equal

The notion that the judge makes the law, and that whatever the judges say is the dictate that the rest of us must follow, does not apply to the other branches of government which are co-equal with the judiciary, and which can and must pass in review the judgments made by the judiciary, in order to see whether they pass constitutional muster.

Governor Bush obviously feels that the action of the Florida courts has not passed that muster, and should the federal court review likewise fail to do so, he has a duty to act, in order to defend what he believes to be the constitutional right in this case. And we, the people, ought to be contacting his office and letting him know that we support him in that duty.

CALL GOV. BUSH at 850-488-4441, or e-mail him by clicking here.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: renewamerica; schiavo; terri; terrischiavo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-105 next last
Yet another Terri Schiavo thread, but this deals with the constitutional aspects and from a notable source.

I posted under "Constitution" because of the issues there as well as under "Government" and "Florida".

Admin Moderator can remove from topics if appropriate.

For those who are getting so emotional over Terri Schiavo, please allow for a good, informed discussion on this.

I think the author makes some good points that should be aired...

1 posted on 03/23/2005 7:40:31 AM PST by topher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: topher

Interesting article. Thanks.


2 posted on 03/23/2005 7:45:21 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher
And I think the author believes we have a democracy and are not a representative republic.

I presume that means we both think.

3 posted on 03/23/2005 7:48:42 AM PST by G.Mason (The replies by this poster are meant for self-amusement only. Read at your own discretion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Interesting. It also leaves me breathless that the federal judge ignored the law Congress passed to do a de novo review, although I think judges can always decide whether or not to take a case. At this point I am hoping for a Roe v Wade decision from the Supremes that gets the government out of this entirely and rules that end of live decisions should be between a patient, his family, and his doc. No lawsuits.


4 posted on 03/23/2005 7:52:53 AM PST by ClaireSolt (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: topher
But this order is not dependent on the Executive for action. If it were he could pardon Terri.

The only time in our history (AFAIK) that a President actually took action against to oppose a judgment of the Supreme Court was when Clinton perjured and manipulated the Paula Jones case after a unanimous Supreme Court said "respondent has a right to an orderly disposition of her claims"

He was rightly impeached.

5 posted on 03/23/2005 7:55:54 AM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
From the article:

the judiciary has set its face against what the society, the people, the legislature, and the Governor believe is constitutional right.

G.Mason says:

And I think the author believes we have a democracy and are not a representative republic.

I strongly disagree. In the statement above, the elected representatives have voiced strong differences with the Judicial Branch. So have the people, but they only have say through their representatives.

We are supposed to be a government of We the People.

The representatives of the people (legislative and executive branches) have a responsibility to protect the people if the Judiciary is not abiding by the laws.

In this case, Judge Greer is acting as Guardian ab Litem as well as the fact the US Congress allowed the parents to have a new trial de novo.

Judiciary prudence dictates that the representatives of the people protect the rights of the people and enforce the laws.

So I just disagree that this is getting into a Democracy. If someone was lynching people in Tampa under Bishop Lynch [pun intended], then the Governor has the right to stop that, even if the courts consider that a good exercise of religious freedom.

6 posted on 03/23/2005 7:56:16 AM PST by topher (Pray for our leaders -- Pray for Justice for Terri Schiavo -- let her live!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
And I think the author believes we have a democracy and are not a representative republic.

I don't think you are right. Where in the piece does he convey that impression?

The piece argues for the executive to be co-equal with the judiciary rather than subservient to it. The executive is, typically (depending on the state) elected by the people directly (but in some cases may not be). The executive of the nation is actually elected by the filtered votes of the people in the two-part process. None of this implies "democracy and not a representative republic". But, rather, both.

He is not arguing for all decisions to be made via popular referenda.

7 posted on 03/23/2005 7:58:35 AM PST by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ClaireSolt
At this point I am hoping for a Roe v Wade decision from the Supremes that gets the government out of this entirely and rules that end of live decisions

At the US Supreme Court, where the Roe v Wade decision is stored, they are always finding it turned upside down on the bookself [overturning Roe v Wade symbolically].

Associates of Supreme Court Justice are being blamed for this...

8 posted on 03/23/2005 7:58:38 AM PST by topher (Pray for our leaders -- Pray for Justice for Terri Schiavo -- let her live!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: topher

I might add that it is high time that people in positions of authority, when given orders such as this by the courts, have a Moral Obligation to IGNORE THOSE ORDERS!

"I was just following orders" was not a defense in Nuremburg and it is no defense now.

The Police officers who are standing armed guard outside that hospital to prevent people from trying to feed her manually. The doctors and nurses who stood by and did NOTHING while that tube was removed, or actively participated in that procedure are just as guilty as Greer, Michael and Felos in this woman's murder.

People, keep in mind you have ZERO obligation to follow an illegal command from anyone in any position of authority. Murder by starvation IS an illegal order. Period.


9 posted on 03/23/2005 8:01:10 AM PST by Leatherneck_MT (3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
The problem is the fact that this isn't a "Constitutional" issue. This is a state/federal law issue. The government is stepping in and virtually changing judicial review. They are trying to get the federal court to intervene in a case that falls rightfully under the jurisdiction of state court. In my opinion, this is an abuse of power, no matter what I think of her fate.

Global News Matrix
10 posted on 03/23/2005 8:04:23 AM PST by MatrixMetaphore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: topher
Like I stated, we think.

" Right now, Terri Schindler-Schiavo is being deliberately starved. Thus, the Florida executive, Jeb Bush, is bound by his oath to act now in accordance with his conscientious understanding of what the Constitution and the laws of Florida require, because the judge in the case has no executive power."

I don't see the governor storming the hospice walls.

Do you think he is acting "in accordance with his conscientious understanding of what the Constitution and the laws of Florida require"?

11 posted on 03/23/2005 8:04:35 AM PST by G.Mason (The replies by this poster are meant for self-amusement only. Read at your own discretion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT

Will you lead us to storm those gates of Hell?


12 posted on 03/23/2005 8:05:53 AM PST by G.Mason (The replies by this poster are meant for self-amusement only. Read at your own discretion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason

Will you lead us to storm those gates of Hell?

If necessary yes


13 posted on 03/23/2005 8:06:42 AM PST by Leatherneck_MT (3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: topher
Dear David Quack:

Did you ever consider that Jeb has his own team of advisers who may have more formidable credentials than yours?

14 posted on 03/23/2005 8:07:24 AM PST by verity (The Liberal Media and the ACLU are America's Enemies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
Do you think he is acting "in accordance with his conscientious understanding of what the Constitution and the laws of Florida require"?

I may be wrong, but if the governor knows of problems that require marshall law declared and the Natioanl Guard to go in or the State Police, he has the authority and must act.

I am not sure why the Governor or the President do not intervene to protect an innocent life from an erratic judge [at least my opinion].

The executive branch has an obligation. Sort of like a policeman standing by and watching a young lady being gunned down in front of his eyes and doing nothing...

15 posted on 03/23/2005 8:08:25 AM PST by topher (Pray for our leaders -- Pray for Justice for Terri Schiavo -- let her live!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: topher

I just sent the following email to Governor Bush:

Dear Governor Bush:

Sir, it is my belief that as "Chief Magistrate" of the State of Florida, you have the moral/Biblical authority to act in an extraordinary fashion, outside of what is currently thought to be your powers, to rescue the life of Terri Schiavo.

The Judical Branch of Government has become too detached from reality and is out of control. They no longer practice the "Rule of Law" but instead the "Rule of Lawyers." Here you not only have a moral obligation under God to act, but a constitutional one to restore balance to the three branches. Extreme circumstances call for extreme action.

You will, of course, be lambasted and vilified for doing this, but you will be right in the eyes of God. I think that matters to you. I also think that in time, after the dust settles and the facts fully reported, you will eventually have the gratitude of your countrymen.

I am therefore pleading with you to use Executive Power and order law enforcement personnel under your control to take Terri Schiavo into protective custody, to sustain her life, in defiance of the courts. I know this is a difficult thing to do, but I think you are up to it.

With respect and prayers to sustain you,

Name withheld(here)
Midwest City, OK

P.S. I also think you should call upon the President of the United States to also exercise extraordinary executive power. The Judiciary has ignored the intent of the Congress of the United States and President. This must end.


16 posted on 03/23/2005 8:08:27 AM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank fan
Excerpt from artice...

" ... an assault that continues, in this case, in contravention of the will of the people as expressed in Florida in the state legislature, by the governor, now by the Congress of the United States."

What has the Florida legislature expressed in this case?

17 posted on 03/23/2005 8:10:23 AM PST by G.Mason (The replies by this poster are meant for self-amusement only. Read at your own discretion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: topher

The family from both sides went to the judiciary to interpret the laws and the laws were interpreted accordingly. It is unfortunate that the side that disagrees with the rulings they sought, is not willing to accept the decisions because it wasn't ruled in their favor.
So now they blame the judicial system who are just doing their job of interpreting the laws as written.
It is unfortunate that society thinks they have to take issues all the way to the Supreme Courts and still cannot accept the laws of the land.
It is not the job of the judiciary to appease people with agendas, but in some recent cases it appears that indeed is the case. But does that make the judiciary corrupt as a whole? I don't believe so. However it is easy to point out a handful of rulings from various Circuits and assume the entire process is corrupt. This court has ruled on individual rights as opposed to states rights. And generally the court will always favor the individual right and not the right of the collective. Agree or disagree, someone will always be upset with a ruling and that is the way it always will be.

The pressure placed upon the Judiciary has to be immense and I wouldn't want the job. The Judiciary is not a popularity contest.


18 posted on 03/23/2005 8:10:48 AM PST by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
The only time in our history (AFAIK) that a President actually took action against to oppose a judgment of the Supreme Court was when Clinton perjured and manipulated the Paula Jones case

You are overlooking Andrew Jackson's actions in opposition to the ruling of the Supreme Court with regard to the Indian removal from Northern Georgia.

19 posted on 03/23/2005 8:12:57 AM PST by aQ_code_initiate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MatrixMetaphore
Global News Matrix

You have a bad link here.

But my question is if the state judge is acting improperly [according to some reports, by being the Guardian ab Litem and the Judge of report, this violates Florida law].

The other really odd thing about this case is the Judge is blind, so taking on two roles is really not in the interest of the person he is concerned [Justice is blind takes on a new meaning with Judge George Greer].

20 posted on 03/23/2005 8:13:10 AM PST by topher (Pray for our leaders -- Pray for Justice for Terri Schiavo -- let her live!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: topher

This is basically what I discussed with my wife this morning. Jeb Bush has the power. Right now he's having to chose between a skewering by the media and probable political suicide, vs. doing what's right and conscienable.

Let's hope he decides correctly... and soon.


21 posted on 03/23/2005 8:13:40 AM PST by mikeus_maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
What has the Florida legislature expressed in this case?

It expressed a wish that the Governor of Florida be empowered to sign an executive order requiring re-insertion of Terri's feeding tube. The law was popularly known as "Terri's Law", try Google.

22 posted on 03/23/2005 8:14:55 AM PST by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: aQ_code_initiate
You are overlooking Andrew Jackson's actions in opposition to the ruling of the Supreme Court with regard to the Indian removal from Northern Georgia.

This decision is much more famous than one that Clinton was involved in.

There is some historical quote to the effect of Jackson saying to the US Supreme Court "Let them try to enforce it" referring to the decision.

Gold was found on Indian land in Georgia was part of it, but the other part was that the Indians sided with the British in the War of 1812, which Jackson fought in.

Moving the Indians was thought to be in the best interests of the nation -- especially after the Indians joined with the British in the War of 1812.

23 posted on 03/23/2005 8:16:06 AM PST by topher (Pray for our leaders -- Pray for Justice for Terri Schiavo -- let her live!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: topher
" ... but if the governor knows ... "

Are you serious?

" ... he has the authority and must act ... "

This is your edict?

24 posted on 03/23/2005 8:17:21 AM PST by G.Mason (The replies by this poster are meant for self-amusement only. Read at your own discretion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MatrixMetaphore
The government is stepping in and virtually changing judicial review. They are trying to get the federal court to intervene in a case that falls rightfully under the jurisdiction of state court. In my opinion, this is an abuse of power, no matter what I think of her fate.

Then you must have a problem with the U.S. Constitution, which allows for Congress to establish courts and set their jurisdictions.

25 posted on 03/23/2005 8:18:10 AM PST by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mikeus_maximus
Let's hope he decides correctly... and soon.

He is not running for re-election in 2006 and he does not want to be President. Of course, he could run for the US Senate seat in Florida...

Those might be the political considerations.

But I agree -- let him do what is right. We need someone in poltical office with the cahunas to do the right thing.

It took a lot more courage to invade Iraq than to save this woman's life.

26 posted on 03/23/2005 8:18:50 AM PST by topher (Pray for our leaders -- Pray for Justice for Terri Schiavo -- let her live!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ClaireSolt
At this point I am hoping for a Roe v Wade decision from the Supremes that gets the government out of this entirely Both the decision you ask for and Roe v Wade have brought bloodshed by decree. It was wrong then and would be wrong now. The first freedom is life.
27 posted on 03/23/2005 8:19:12 AM PST by grassboots.org (I'll Say It Again - The first freedom is life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: topher
I'm not sure the state judge was acting improperly. I have not read any reports stating that. Please link to them if you can. I've read posts on how this case is violating Florida Law. I'm not sure that is correct. I'll have to do more research, but it's my understanding that under marriage law, Michael Schiavo is acting within his rights. Again, it matters now if I agree or disagree with his decision. I'll do some research to see if I can validate the claim though.

Global News Matrix
28 posted on 03/23/2005 8:19:25 AM PST by MatrixMetaphore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
This is your edict?

I have made it simple. If a policeman stands by while an innocent woman is murdered, what sort of a policeman is he?

In a sense, Jeb is that policeman who must act to prevent the murder. Pretty black and white...

29 posted on 03/23/2005 8:21:02 AM PST by topher (Pray for our leaders -- Pray for Justice for Terri Schiavo -- let her live!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: topher

Here is Judge Ed Carnes of the 11th Circuit panel saying:

"... if Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument were allowed to stand, it would mean a massive revision of how the courts have interpreted the First Amendment for years."

This leftist judge decided not to consider Terri's case.


30 posted on 03/23/2005 8:21:07 AM PST by watchdog_writer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank fan
It isn't a matter for me to Google. You made a statement, I asked you what the legistature did.

Should you wish to circumvent the discussion, by all means do so.

The point is that the governor has not stormed the hospice care provider in Largo and taken custody of Terri.

The question is ... why not?

31 posted on 03/23/2005 8:24:11 AM PST by G.Mason (The replies by this poster are meant for self-amusement only. Read at your own discretion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MatrixMetaphore
I'm not sure the state judge was acting improperly. I have not read any reports stating that. Please link to them if you can.

This has been stated, but finding the thread and post will take time. If I can find it, I will post, but I can't promise it will appear in the next 48 hours...

But the only point I wish to make is that videos of Terri were used as evidence, and the New York Times has posted an article about the horrible eyesight of Judge Greer -- so bad he cannot drive.

But I am not sure if he is or is not legally blind.

32 posted on 03/23/2005 8:25:06 AM PST by topher (Pray for our leaders -- Pray for Justice for Terri Schiavo -- let her live!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT

Advocating anarchy--such an interesting concept to find on FR.


33 posted on 03/23/2005 8:25:06 AM PST by Catspaw (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: watchdog_writer
Personally I think the government is taking the First Amendment to far. If you read it, it states that there can be no government appointed religion. No "national standard". It doesn't say there needs to be a full separation of church and state. Just that each religion is treated equally.

The government was founded on the Catholic (or similar) basis. This is why they display such symbols. They aren't stating, however, that Catholicism is the "national religion".

Global News Matrix

34 posted on 03/23/2005 8:26:18 AM PST by MatrixMetaphore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
Advocating anarchy--such an interesting concept to find on FR.

It is not the first time in America -- 1776 and the Rebellion against a king in England.

And then there was a discussion about things after President Abraham Lincoln was made President -- the bloodiest war in American history [the Civil War].

In the latter [Civil War], both sides thought they were right and were willing to die for their cause.

Folks who have fought in the Military I have respect for. They probably have seen death, and sometimes because of really stupid decisions and sometimes they have also seen very courageous things done.

35 posted on 03/23/2005 8:28:23 AM PST by topher (Pray for our leaders -- Pray for Justice for Terri Schiavo -- let her live!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
Advocating anarchy--such an interesting concept to find on FR.

It is not the first time in America -- 1776 and the Rebellion against a king in England.

And then there was a discussion about things after President Abraham Lincoln was made President -- the bloodiest war in American history [the Civil War].

In the latter [Civil War], both sides thought they were right and were willing to die for their cause.

Folks who have fought in the Military I have respect for. They probably have seen death, and sometimes because of really stupid decisions and sometimes they have also seen very courageous things done.

36 posted on 03/23/2005 8:28:30 AM PST by topher (Pray for our leaders -- Pray for Justice for Terri Schiavo -- let her live!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: o_zarkman44
It is unfortunate that the side that disagrees with the rulings they sought, is not willing to accept the decisions because it wasn't ruled in their favor.

Yeah, everyone has a duty to accept injustice, all the time.

So now they blame the judicial system who are just doing their job of interpreting the laws as written.

And courts interpret laws infallibly, all the time.

It is unfortunate that society thinks they have to take issues all the way to the Supreme Courts and still cannot accept the laws of the land.

Actually, you're right, it is unfortunate that the public sees the judiciary as the only option, and the Supreme Court as the last word, rather than seeing the executive and legislature as co-equal branches.

It is not the job of the judiciary to appease people with agendas,

No but it is their job to serve justice. Violating Terri Schiavo's right to life does not, any way you slice it. If you like let me just point to the 14th amendment. No judge can rationally explain why her 14th amendment rights are not being violated in this case.

However it is easy to point out a handful of rulings from various Circuits and assume the entire process is corrupt

True, and it's easier when there's an entire pattern rather than a random handful.

This court has ruled on individual rights as opposed to states rights.

My, what a totally NOT superficial summary of this case! You should have an opinion column.

The court has "ruled on" "individual rights"? yes, I suppose that's true. They have ruled that Terri Schiavo, the individual, lacks the right to life, and meanwhile, Michael Schiavo, a different individual, has the right to make her dead if he wants.

That what you meant?

And generally the court will always favor the individual right and not the right of the collective.

except in this case, where the "collective" is deciding that an individual should die.

Agree or disagree, someone will always be upset with a ruling and that is the way it always will be.

Brilliant observation, really. But this gets us nowhere. You're right that someone will always be upset with a ruling. And? someone was upset with the Dred Scott decision. Someone was upset with the Bush v. Gore decision. Someone was upset with their decision overturning laws against flag-burning. and so it goes. None of this tells us anything about whether any of those respective decisions were right or wrong, just or unjust.

Nor does it refute the point of the author above, which is that the executive branch is co-equal with the judicial branch, not subservient to it.

The pressure placed upon the Judiciary has to be immense and I wouldn't want the job. The Judiciary is not a popularity contest.

Actually it kinda is. Except, usually to win this contest you don't (generally) have to be "popular" among the American public, but rather, among the members of the ABA and various left-wing opinion leaders and Congressmen.

Look at Bush's recent appointees... not popular among lefties and ABA types, therefore Boxer & friends are blocking them.

Unless, of course, the majority in the legislature too asserts its power.

37 posted on 03/23/2005 8:28:30 AM PST by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
Advocating anarchy--such an interesting concept to find on FR.

It is not the first time in America -- 1776 and the Rebellion against a king in England.

And then there was a discussion about things after President Abraham Lincoln was made President -- the bloodiest war in American history [the Civil War].

In the latter [Civil War], both sides thought they were right and were willing to die for their cause.

Folks who have fought in the Military I have respect for. They probably have seen death, and sometimes because of really stupid decisions and sometimes they have also seen very courageous things done.

38 posted on 03/23/2005 8:28:39 AM PST by topher (Pray for our leaders -- Pray for Justice for Terri Schiavo -- let her live!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: topher
I'm not sure if you can make a ruling on the video tapes anyways. First, they could be redacted. Second, they could depict her in a state she wasn't "actually" in. The doctors on record for the court used ONLY the tapes as a manner to review her condition. This is, to say the least, insufficient to perform an adequate diagnosis.

It's been said that that the doctor(s) should be brought up on charges and perhaps lose their medical licenses. I'm not sure I disagree.

Global News Matrix
39 posted on 03/23/2005 8:29:29 AM PST by MatrixMetaphore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: topher
" In a sense, Jeb is that policeman who must act to prevent the murder. Pretty black and white..."

Again, by whose edict?

Let me ask you this. Do you think Governor Bush knows more about this situation than you, or I?

Do you think Governor Bush should make decisions, he was elected to make, based on the laws, his personal feelings, or the feelings of many who may, or may not know all the facts?

40 posted on 03/23/2005 8:31:50 AM PST by G.Mason (The replies by this poster are meant for self-amusement only. Read at your own discretion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
Murder by starvation IS an illegal order. Period.

Not according to the courts of Florida.

Your argument (that the police should not enforce the law), is as stupid as the Anti -War activists saying that our soldiers are no better than the SS in WWII. These Anti -War activists believe just as passionately as you do that the war is "illegal" (no I am putting absolutely no credence in that argument, of course the war was legal) as you do that the order to remove the feeding tube from Terri is somehow illegal.

Unfortunately, every court that has reviewed it doesn't believe that removing a tube is illegal. Just as I believe that abortion is murder, it's obvious that the courts don't agree with me.

My heart bleeds for Terri, but the hyperbole at this site has become unbelievable. I never thought that the day would come when I would go to Free Republic and see a poll that states they want our President to do something, even if it is against the law, to protect one person. Although we each have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we must never take knee jerk reactions that threatens the rest of the Constitution!

41 posted on 03/23/2005 8:32:37 AM PST by codercpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
It isn't a matter for me to Google. You made a statement, I asked you what the legistature did. Should you wish to circumvent the discussion, by all means do so.

What on earth are you talking about? circumvent?

Again, you bolded the article's statement that the judiciary is in contradiction with the executive/legislature. You asked me, of all people, what the legislature has done about it. I told you. They passed a law explicitly endorsing the notion of the Governor of Florida ordering her life saved by executive order. That's the answer. That doesn't "circumvent" your question, it answers it, unless your question had some subtle meaning I am missing.

The point is that the governor has not stormed the hospice care provider in Largo and taken custody of Terri.

That is true. Wow, good point!

um, that's what the article is saying. That the governor has the power to save her life, and should, but is not. We all agree about that, then, apparently.

The question is ... why not?

I dunno. He's afeard, I reckon.

Any other questions?

42 posted on 03/23/2005 8:33:54 AM PST by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: topher
At the US Supreme Court, where the Roe v Wade decision is stored, they are always finding it turned upside down on the bookself [overturning Roe v Wade symbolically].

Really? I get a smug satisfaction from that little anecdote, thanks for sharing.

43 posted on 03/23/2005 8:34:11 AM PST by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
"If necessary yes"

It has become painfully apparent it is necessary.

When will you begin?

44 posted on 03/23/2005 8:36:40 AM PST by G.Mason (The replies by this poster are meant for self-amusement only. Read at your own discretion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
I think Jeb knows the facts as best he can. The problem is he is powerless right now, and so is the president. There seems to be a misconception that a pardon could be initiated. This is incorrect, because Terri was never "sentenced" to death.

Also, to comment on the post regarding initiating martial law, I think this is a terrible idea. It will create a precedence for anyone who the government feels deserves an "alternate" fate.

Global News Matrix

45 posted on 03/23/2005 8:37:19 AM PST by MatrixMetaphore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MatrixMetaphore

Welcome to FR. What about the supremacy clause? What if the state actions are violating her civil rights - cruel and unusual punishment, equal protection etc. Why is it constitutional to require federal review for capital punishment cases but not for this case?


46 posted on 03/23/2005 8:39:25 AM PST by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: agrace
Really? I get a smug satisfaction from that little anecdote, thanks for sharing.

I also get a satisfaction thinking about that as well...

47 posted on 03/23/2005 8:40:35 AM PST by topher (Pray for our leaders -- Pray for Justice for Terri Schiavo -- let her live!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: MatrixMetaphore
I'm not sure if you can make a ruling on the video tapes anyways. First, they could be redacted. Some of the taping was court-ordered. The balloon tape was made by the court-appointed doctor (who by the way testified she is a PVS after talking to Terri telling her what a good job she was doing following the balloon.
48 posted on 03/23/2005 8:41:27 AM PST by grassboots.org (I'll Say It Again - The first freedom is life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: agrace
Please don't make the mistake in assuming I agree with what's happening to her. I think she should live, be divorced, and stay with her parents. What I don't agree with is the "circus" this has turned into. My problems surpass her case, and fall directly on the government. I don't agree with the actions of the government, because I don't recognize their authority in this situation.

GlobalNewsMatrix
49 posted on 03/23/2005 8:43:16 AM PST by MatrixMetaphore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: All
When you call Gov. Bush, ask about the following:

I did a google search on "Florida law adultery criminal" and found a web site that claims that under section 798.01 of the Florida code that:

"Whoever lives in an open state of adultery shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083." Reportedly, punishment for a misdemeanor of the second degree can be up to 60 days imprisonment.

If Jeb Bush really wants to help Terri, why doesn't he direct Florida law enforcement to arrest Michael Shiavo under this standard and while he is in jail (even overnight before the bail hearing) have, or petition to have, a new guardian appointed, perhaps on the basis that Michael can't do the job in jail or must be replaced because of the criminal charges?

I don't know how new guardians are chosen but would think her parents are the logical alternative and they would direct her to be fed and given water again.

50 posted on 03/23/2005 8:43:31 AM PST by Law ("...all who hate me love death" Proverbs 8:36b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-105 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson