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 previous 1-5051-100101-105 next last
To: Dr. Frank fan
"They passed a law explicitly endorsing the notion of the Governor of Florida ordering her life saved by executive order."

So the legislature explicitly endorsed the notion of the governor, ordering her life saved by executive order.

That's nice.

It would seem the the governor is not taking the notion to heart.

I guess my next question (thanks for asking) would be ... what's next, or would you rather I Google?

51 posted on 03/23/2005 8:44:46 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 42 | View Replies]

To: MatrixMetaphore
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.

It may have been a stacked deck -- Attorney George Felos was the Chairman of the Board of the hospice [and the business that runs it] in 1998 to 1999 [maybe 2000]. About the time Terri was admitted, he was ONLY a director.

I think they used testimonies from the hospice, which might imply Attorney Felos has some control over.

The stories of three nurses are very interesting -- the who left yesterday was very upset about what was going on [Nora].

But I think there is a link that may help you... I will just post that link after reading it.

52 posted on 03/23/2005 8:45:06 AM PST by topher (Pray for our leaders -- Pray for Justice for Terri Schiavo -- let her live!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: topher

Eh, I think there should be a Constitutional Amendment removing the judiciary as a branch of government and instead only allowing judges to preside over civil and criminal cases. I can't think of a single way in which the judiciary has ever improved anything.


53 posted on 03/23/2005 8:45:49 AM PST by ElectionTracker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aQ_code_initiate
Jackson didn't take any action. He just did nothing.
Clinton took action to defy the court.

If Bush does nothing, like Jackson, the order is carried out anyway.

54 posted on 03/23/2005 8:46:02 AM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MatrixMetaphore
" ... The problem is he is powerless right now ... "

Not according to the very "reputable" David Quackenbush.

Hmmmm ... whom to believe.

55 posted on 03/23/2005 8:47:41 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 45 | View Replies]

To: topher
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.

Today we are governed by a judicial oligrachy which believes in murder by due process of the law.
56 posted on 03/23/2005 8:48:16 AM PST by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MatrixMetaphore

I wasn't assuming anything other than that you may have the knowledge to lend me some insight into my questions. Why don't you recognize the govt's authority? And to repeat, what about the supremacy clause, etc? Any thoughts?


57 posted on 03/23/2005 8:48:24 AM PST by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ElectionTracker
If they do that, there will be no authority to change anything outside of "breaking the law". That's not an option.

Global News Matrix
58 posted on 03/23/2005 8:48:59 AM PST by MatrixMetaphore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: codercpc
"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!
"

Murder is illegal. The courts have no right to rule rewrite the law so that someone can be murdered. If it takes executive action to get courts back in line, good. Anything involving elected officials is better than activist judges changing the law at whim. Hopefully, this will pave the way for the elected branches to ignore the unconstitutional principle of "judicial overview" altogether. IMO, if the court refuses to follow the law, the executive branch should ignore it and enforce the law on its own. Rule of Law is better than Rule of Permanent-Oligarch Judges.
59 posted on 03/23/2005 8:54:57 AM PST by ElectionTracker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT

You and I are of the same mind on this.

If we allow a woman who has committed no crime to be willfully murdered, then we don't have far to go to be at the gates of hell. If the law allows this, then the law has become so perverted that the meaning, the very foundations, of this nation have crumbled.


60 posted on 03/23/2005 8:55:21 AM PST by ex 98C MI Dude (Proud Member of the Reagan Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: agrace
Take a look at what the government is (essentially) trying to accomplish here. They are attempting to intervene in a state law case. Many disagree that this is a state issue, but it really is. Florida law does not recognize that Terri should be divorced from her husband. Florida law does not recognize her parents as having power of attorney. Florida law recognizes assisted feeding and hydration devices are "life support" units, and may be removed upon authorization and/or direction of the next of kin, which in this case, is Michael.

The government was established with the understanding that federal governance and state governance is separate. The supremacy clause states that when two laws, state and federal, conflict with one another, federal supersedes the state. The problem is that federal law DOES NOT conflict here, because there isn't one. Congress is attempting to enact a statue that WILL conflict with the state, therefore overriding it. That's an abuse of power in my opinion.

Touching on "cruel and unusual", where does the line stand on this issue? If someone cannot breathe on their own, but will take several hours to die if removed from a respirator, is this "cruel and unusual"? I'm not so sure.

Global News Matrix

61 posted on 03/23/2005 8:55:43 AM PST by MatrixMetaphore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
So the legislature explicitly endorsed the notion of the governor, ordering her life saved by executive order. That's nice. It would seem the the governor is not taking the notion to heart.

Well, actually, to fill you in on these historical facts: The Governor took it to heart just fine, but then the Florida Supreme Court struck down the law as "unconstitutional".

Which brings us back to the premise of the article at the top of this thread: How does executive power stack against judicial? The article is asserting that executive need not bow down without exception.

I guess my next question (thanks for asking) would be ... what's next, or would you rather I Google?

What's next, I suspect, is that Terri will continue to be starved until she is dead, and most of our polity will continue to subscribe to the view of black-robed judges as our masters whose say is final.

The point of the article was to say that Jeb Bush ought not to let that happen, and in a perfect world, he wouldn't, and in the original vision of our government, he'd be well within his power to do something. I agree with that article. And it sounds like you do too. So, we all agree.

Anything else?

62 posted on 03/23/2005 8:57:14 AM PST by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: MatrixMetaphore
"If they do that, there will be no authority to change anything outside of "breaking the law". That's not an option."

Yes there will. Its called elections. What you should say is "If they do that, there will be no authority for people with extreme views that can't get majority support to change anything outside of "breaking the law". That's not an option for the Democrats." "Judicial Overview" is an unconstitutional power grab that has caused no end of trouble and should be stopped ASAP.
63 posted on 03/23/2005 8:59:52 AM PST by ElectionTracker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | 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.

I am only part of Post 91, as it is very long. This is only accusations on Judge Greer.

Somewhere else I saw the Florida statutes he was in violation of.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1368354/posts?page=91#91

Criminal Investigation of Greer for Prejudice and Judicial Misconduct

1) Refusal to hear credible testimony

Judge Greer refused to acknowledge testimony of 10 doctors and 3 nurses who have cared for Terri and who testify that:

a) Terri is not in a persistive vegetative state

b) Terri is able to be rehabilitated with care and therapy

c) Terri’s original injuries are questionable and consistent with spouse abuse and attempted strangulation

d) Terri has been abused and neglected by her husband; denied treatment for infection and possible attempted murder while in nursing home care (discovery of empty insulin vial and temperature in room set at 64 degrees)

Jude Greer instead chose to believe contrary testimony by two of Michael’s representatives who are:

a) A doctor who rarely sees Terri (Dr. Gambone who has now resigned as Terri’s doctor)

b) Ronald Cranford, Hannipeg County Medical Center , Minnesota who makes an avocation of testifying in cases such as Terri's throughout the country, always on the side of dehydration and starvation.

Example of testimony ignored:

Dr. Alexander T. Gimon, Clinical Neuro-psychologist, presents evidence that Terri Schiavo does indeed have cognitive function and should receive therapy: "Given the neglect which Terri has suffered...it is striking that her current cognitive functioning is as strong and varied in expression as it is. This indicates that sufficient brain structure exists for further cognitive and behavioral progress to be made. Terri is an excellent subject for a variety of cognitive treatment protocols designed to improve her neurological function, including neuroaerobics, physical therapy, recreational/occupational therapy, and speech-language therapy."

2) Judicial Canon violation – motion to dismiss Greer

a) Greer revealed information about the case, predisposition as to how he would rule, merits of the case, testimony he had received to local reporters without counsel present.

b)Judge Greer advised Tampa Atty General office that if Gov Bush was a lawyer, his letter to the judge would be a grievous offense under Fl Bar rules; statements made without counsel present.

c) Motion to Disqualify Judge Greer filed on Fri. Sept 5th at which time Judge Greer contacted Deputy Atty General John Carassas and Sheriff Rice in an attempt to attack the factual basis of the motion and affidavits.

3) Conflict of Interest and Prejudice

Judge George Greer is not impartial. He has worked side by side as county commissioner with Barbara Sheen Todd (county commissioner) for eight years. Barbara Sheen Todd is on the board of the hospice. Also, Judge Greer's fellow judge, Judge John Lenderman is the brother of Martha Lenderman, also on the hospice board. Greer accepted as the basis of his rulings, the questionable testimony of Michael Schiavo that Terri would wish to be killed, yet Michael never stated this until he had received the 1.2 million dollar settlement. Greer also accepted as the basis of his rulings, the "opinion" of a third doctor who is the brother of a close associate of George Felos, right-to-kill attorney, and very significantly, former Chairman of the hospice board.

4) Denial of Guardian appointment to Ensure Medical Care

Judge Greer refused to allow a non-biased guardian to be appointed for Terri’s care, despite numerous citations of the violation of Terri’s rights under State and Federal Law for disabled persons, including assignment of guardian as a requirement under Fl Law, Section 744. Moreover, in the state court proceedings initiated by defendant Michael Schiavo, Terri Schiavo, a severely disabled individual, had no guardian ad litem and no lawyer for the majority of the proceedings. Attorney Pearse who was assigned by the court in 1998 was dismissed from the case by the state court on motion by Michael Schiavo’s attorney George J. Felos.

5) ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND EXPLOITATION OF ELDERLY PERSONS AND DISABLED ADULTS

"... 825.103 Exploitation of an elderly person or disabled adult; penalties.--

(1) "Exploitation of an elderly person or disabled adult" means:

(a) Knowingly, by deception or intimidation, obtaining or using, or endeavoring to obtain or use, an elderly person's or disabled adult's funds, assets, or property with the intent to temporarily or permanently deprive the elderly person or disabled adult of the use, benefit, or possession of the funds, assets, or property, or to benefit someone other than the elderly person or disabled adult, by a person who:[Felos and Greer need to be investigated by the State of Florida and the US Attorney General.]

1. Stands in a position of trust and confidence with the elderly person or disabled adult; or

2. Has a business relationship with the elderly person or disabled adult; or

(b) Obtaining or using, endeavoring to obtain or use, or conspiring with another to obtain or use an elderly person's or disabled adult's funds, assets, or property with the intent to temporarily or permanently deprive the elderly person or disabled adult of the use, benefit, or possession of the funds, assets, or property, or to benefit someone other than the elderly person or disabled adult, by a person who knows or reasonably should know that the elderly person or disabled adult lacks the capacity to consent.

(2)(a) If the funds, assets, or property involved in the exploitation of the elderly person or disabled adult is valued at $100,000 or more, the offender commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. [Terri's fund reportedly only has $50,000 left. Felos himself has admitted receiving $500,000 to assist in killing Terri.]

(b) If the funds, assets, or property involved in the exploitation of the elderly person or disabled adult is valued at $20,000 or more, but less than $100,000, the offender commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(c) If the funds, assets, or property involved in the exploitation of an elderly person or disabled adult is valued at less than $20,000, the offender commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

History.--s. 4, ch. 95-158; s. 5, ch. 96-322; s. 1, ch. 97-78.


64 posted on 03/23/2005 9:01:32 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: ElectionTracker
I agree judicial review is horrible, and paves the way for judges with personal agendas to set the standard. However, "things" need to be done at times which require the judiciary branch to get involved. I say don't abolish their power, tame it.

Global News Matrix
65 posted on 03/23/2005 9:02:25 AM PST by MatrixMetaphore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw

Advocating what our Forefathers advocated. Rebellion against a tyrant or in this case a series of tyrants. Judicial Tyrants. They do not rule us


66 posted on 03/23/2005 9:05:21 AM PST by Leatherneck_MT (3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MatrixMetaphore
"I agree judicial review is horrible, and paves the way for judges with personal agendas to set the standard. However, "things" need to be done at times which require the judiciary branch to get involved. I say don't abolish their power, tame it."

But remember that they were without the power of judicial review originally - they ruled it to themselves. If you don't abolish their power entirely, you must at least be sure to devise some system that prevents them from ruling judicial review or something similar back to themselves again. I'm not sure that is possible.
67 posted on 03/23/2005 9:06:15 AM PST by ElectionTracker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT

I have to agree with your post, and the article.

It is quite obvious that the only person who can save Terri is the Chief Executive of the state of Florida. If Terri dies, it will be because Gov. Bush did nothing to stop it. What is the saying about good men doing nothing in the face of evil?


68 posted on 03/23/2005 9:06:54 AM PST by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ElectionTracker

How do you propose getting something that HAS to be done accomplished if you cannot get the votes? What if it's a topic that you believe in with all your will?


69 posted on 03/23/2005 9:07:40 AM PST by MatrixMetaphore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: TheDon

Please elaborate on what exactly you think the Govenor can do.


70 posted on 03/23/2005 9:08:51 AM PST by MatrixMetaphore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: TheDon

The only thing needed for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.


71 posted on 03/23/2005 9:11:26 AM PST by Leatherneck_MT (3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank fan
" Anything else?"

No, other than to add, I thought your reply to my ...

" The question is ... why not?" (post #42) was outstanding.

"I dunno. He's afeard, I reckon."

We must stop electing these wimps and begin to find strong, courageous, honest politicians.

You know ... those that are unafeared, and jump when the backseat drivers tell them to.

72 posted on 03/23/2005 9:12:17 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 62 | View Replies]

To: codercpc

I'm not saying that removing the tube is illegal, I am saying the forcing her to starve to death is illegal.

No court in this country and justify it's moral existance by stating flatly that it is "ok" to starve a person to death regardless of their mental capacity.

This issue is a moral issue, not a legal issue. The law be damned in this case. If the law is wrong then we as a people have the moral responsibility to 1. Ignore it and 2. work to change it.

The Police officers that keep that woman from being fed by hand are just as guilty as the man who gave the order and the man who sought the order.

Period


73 posted on 03/23/2005 9:14:25 AM PST by Leatherneck_MT (3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ex 98C MI Dude

If we allow a woman who has committed no crime to be willfully murdered, then we don't have far to go to be at the gates of hell. If the law allows this, then the law has become so perverted that the meaning, the very foundations, of this nation have crumbled.

Absolutely and if that is the case then it's past time for a house cleaning. The Judges need to go, the Pols who allowed this to continue need to go and the lawyers who support them both need to be used to create an artificial reef at the bottom of some very deep ocean.


74 posted on 03/23/2005 9:16:36 AM PST by Leatherneck_MT (3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason

I have started, when will you follow?

I have in my lifetime never followed an illegal order. Even at the risk of my career and my families livelyhood.


75 posted on 03/23/2005 9:18:47 AM PST by Leatherneck_MT (3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ElectionTracker
According to YOU removing the feeding tube is "murder". According to Florida law, it is not. According to ME abortion is murder (hence again illegal), according to law it is not. According to Anti - War activists the Iraqi War is illegal, according to the law, it is not.

It all depends on the law. I don't always like the law, but that is what I have to change, not asking the President to circumvent the law, in an unconstitutional manner.

I have not commented on what I personally think of this case, because it really doesn't matter, and that is the point. For all of those stating that the judiciary is committing unlawful acts, that is just ridiculous. They are following the law, at this point. If it is changed today by the Florida Legislation, I will Praise God, but as of this moment, many here are actually asking for judicial activism, which is a scary thought.

I think Michael Schiavo is scum for not turning over guardianship to the parents, but according to the law he didn't have to. If the allegations against him are proven (abuse, etc), then he will be punished. But until that time, the judges must follow Florida law, whether we like it or not.

This doesn't mean that we don't have any recourse. We do, we can continue to call the Florida legislatures to change the law, we can remember this when they are up for re election, and campaign against them, but we can't expect the President, or the Governor to break the law (as it is written now).

76 posted on 03/23/2005 9:25:15 AM PST by codercpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: codercpc

You said exactly what I've been trying to. I agree 100%. Bravo.


77 posted on 03/23/2005 9:26:47 AM PST by MatrixMetaphore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: topher
Regarding separation of powers, the Congress issued sub poenas in this case which were ignored by Judge Greer among others. I am waiting to see if there are any consequences.
78 posted on 03/23/2005 9:28:08 AM PST by Malesherbes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: codercpc
"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."

To protect one person. Yes, that's exactly what the President of a nation founded on individual rights should do.

"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!"

She has the right to life. Her Constitutional right. The govt. is charged with protecting that right. How does protecting an indiviuals right to life threaten the whole Constitution?

Our "right to life" is being replaced by "a right to die", and so many seem to want it so. Sad.

79 posted on 03/23/2005 9:30:17 AM PST by monkeywrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: monkeywrench
You fail to acknowledge the ramifications. We live in a society where matters are resolved on "case law". Anything the court or president does will become "case law", and therefore a governing standard. This is a case where that can be VERY dangerous.

Global News Matrix
80 posted on 03/23/2005 9:43:06 AM PST by MatrixMetaphore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: MatrixMetaphore

How so? I can't see anything more dangerous than exchanging the Constitutional right to life with the humanist right to die. This has been done before. They "give" us civil rights and human rights, which take the place of Constitutional rights.


81 posted on 03/23/2005 9:55:47 AM PST by monkeywrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: monkeywrench

Do you not see that this will set up a premise where if a mother/father and spouse disagree on the fate of the person in question, the government can intervene at any point? What if your wife was near death, and the only thing keeping her alive was a respirator? She would surely die without it, but her parents want to keep her alive, despite the fact she won't recover. As her husband, you have the final say of what happens. Do you want a court to take that away? And before you say "this is different", let me assure you that I know. I'm making a point, though.


82 posted on 03/23/2005 10:02:18 AM PST by MatrixMetaphore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: MatrixMetaphore

Most husbands aren't trying to murder their wife.


83 posted on 03/23/2005 10:03:22 AM PST by over3Owithabrain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: MatrixMetaphore

Thank you. That's very concise and helpful for this layman (er, woman). So how come state-convicted death penalty inmates get federal review?

Any idea whether there any precedent where the Supreme Court found a state law in violation of federally protected civil rights and therefore unconstitutional?

In fact, didn't they just do this in their ruling about juvenile death row convicts?


84 posted on 03/23/2005 10:08:52 AM PST by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: over3Owithabrain

Again, I'm not agreeing with this. But I worry about the ramifications. The law doesn't see him as killing his wife either. So this will haunt us for a long time.


85 posted on 03/23/2005 10:09:01 AM PST by MatrixMetaphore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: codercpc

"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!"

The constitution has stopped working. It needs to be made to work again. Regardless of sophistry I have read here, the judiciary is out of control. The only immediate remedy is for strong executive action. No doubt, this will cause upheaval. However, I am confident that after the dust settles, the balance intended by the constitution will be restored. We will again have "rule of law" instead of the current "rule of lawyers."

I was greatly heartened to see that the majority of fellow Freepers agreed with me that "Extraordinary Executive Action" is appropriate. This tells me that we are not far from restoring the republic to what it should be. Your choice is simple. Join us and help keep things in control, or fight against and really cause a mess.


86 posted on 03/23/2005 10:10:41 AM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: topher

Awesome article, actually. Thanks for posting this.


87 posted on 03/23/2005 10:18:11 AM PST by PistolPaknMama (Will work for cool tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MatrixMetaphore

The court is taking that away at this moment by upholding Terri's man given "right to die". It's already a done deal.


88 posted on 03/23/2005 10:18:33 AM PST by monkeywrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: agrace
My guess is that the federal government, having its own laws on capital punishment, reviews the case because of the supremacy clause.
89 posted on 03/23/2005 10:27:45 AM PST by MatrixMetaphore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: monkeywrench

The court is not taking away Michael's right to decide the fate of his wife. He's pushing for this. So I don't understand your comment.


90 posted on 03/23/2005 10:29:07 AM PST by MatrixMetaphore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
You are a good man of well intentioned ideals, I am sure.

May I ask you, how many times will Terri be subjected to the removal of sufficient care necessary to remain alive?

Is this the very last time? Or will she have to endure this, on and off, until it is long enough to kill her.

91 posted on 03/23/2005 10:31:00 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 75 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT; ex 98C MI Dude
If we allow a woman who has committed no crime to be willfully murdered, then we don't have far to go to be at the gates of hell. If the law allows this, then the law has become so perverted that the meaning, the very foundations, of this nation have crumbled.

Absolutely and if that is the case then it's past time for a house cleaning. The Judges need to go, the Pols who allowed this to continue need to go and the lawyers who support them both need to be used to create an artificial reef at the bottom of some very deep ocean.

I'm with both of you

92 posted on 03/23/2005 10:31:06 AM PST by Future Useless Eater (FreedomLoving_Engineer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: MatrixMetaphore
My guess is that the federal government, having its own laws on capital punishment, reviews the case because of the supremacy clause.

Reviews which case, you mean the juvenile death row issue? I thought of another example, if you'll indulge one more question. What was the federal jurisdiction of the justice dept when it decided to prosecute the Rodney King cops for violating his civil rights?

I found this regarding that case -

In some instances, however, it is because of another factor - such as apparent racial bias. For instance, the verdict in the first, State trial of the police officers charged with beating Rodney King is thought by many to have been based not on the evidence, but on bias. And in such cases, a second, federal trial may be warranted, so that a jury can fairly consider the evidence.

With that in mind, why couldn't the justice dept decide to investigate based on bias charges?

I'm not expecting you to have all the answers (what a first day you're having on FR!), but you sound of a legal mind, at least moreso than myself, so thanks for the dialogue. You said in a later post to someone else -

Again, I'm not agreeing with this. But I worry about the ramifications. The law doesn't see him as killing his wife either. So this will haunt us for a long time.

That's what I've been thinking also. These rulings set a dangerous precedent. It was bad enough for the state of FL, but it may turn out that forcing the federal courts to address it as well just made it that much worse.

93 posted on 03/23/2005 10:46:31 AM PST by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: agrace
I'm enjoying the conversation as well, so no need to apologize for the questions. You're actually making me thing haha! Anyway, my guess is that the case you quoted was bias on race discrimination. Obviously that's not the case with Terri Schiavo.

Yes, the juvenile death row issue is what I was referring to. The federal government has its own laws and statutes regarding capital punishment. My guess is that the juvenile matter was in question on both levels, therefore the Supreme Court heard the case.

Florida law does not see the removal of an assisted living measure as "murder". In fact, to my knowledge, neither does federal law. With that in mind, this case will change that so essentially the federal government WILL view this as murder.

This is where I am worried because there will be case law supporting a third party's right to change the power of attorney relationship. Also, this could in face set new standards for life support. How many have living wills which dictate that they are not to be kept alive using artificial means? That right could be waived if this passes.
94 posted on 03/23/2005 11:01:44 AM PST by MatrixMetaphore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: MatrixMetaphore

She has a right to life which should supercede any rights he claims. His "right to decide" can't trump this basic fundamental right to life of hers. I think it'd be great if the govt. set the precedent of defending individual rights.


95 posted on 03/23/2005 11:02:48 AM PST by monkeywrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: monkeywrench
Please try to think this through. Yes, everyone has the right to live. However, what if you are not capable of choosing that right? That is why we have power of attorney, and next of kin. They are authorized to speak on our behalf when we are unable to. She, obviously, is unable to express exactly what she wants. Therefore, it's up to the next of kin, who is her husband. Your personal feelings on him and his position notwithstanding, he is the one who decides what is "best" for her. You want to take that away from him.

Again, your feelings towards him notwithstanding, how would you feel if your spouse was physically and/or mentally unable to choose their own fate, and you and their parents were feuding on it. Legally you have the right to choose for them. Would you want the government to take that away?
96 posted on 03/23/2005 11:08:49 AM PST by MatrixMetaphore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: topher
When judges act in a way that contravenes the conscience of the executive, they forfeit the cooperation of the executive

Well, that's interesting. Judges can't "contravene the conscience of the executive".
97 posted on 03/23/2005 11:26:26 AM PST by self_evident
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MatrixMetaphore
"However, what if you are not capable of choosing that right?"

Fortunately, the Constitution decides for me and my God given unalienable right to life. That way, no conflict of interest, such as the hino's, will kill me. The govt. was instituted to protect that most basic right. If it doesn't, what need do we have for govt.?

Straying beyond Constitutional borders will just get us further mired in complex and conflicting interests. Not to mention rights made out of whole cloth.

98 posted on 03/23/2005 11:34:46 AM PST by monkeywrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: MatrixMetaphore
Anyway, my guess is that the case you quoted was bias on race discrimination. Obviously that's not the case with Terri Schiavo.

The excerpt from the link I found said that the second, federal trial was held because the justice dept felt that the first verdict was racially biased, I guess meaning that the not guilty verdict violated Rodney King's civil rights. Maybe the racial aspect doesn't apply here, but bias certainly might. As well as other civil rights violations, which seems to be the angle the Schindlers are using in this federal track. Unfortunately, so far, the federal courts aren't in agreement with them, or me. :)

And regarding precedent, I think I'm concerned about the opposite - the federal precedent I am worried about is that this will NOT be viewed as murder because of the federal rulings so far. Seems like a start down a dangerous slippery slope where cases from any state could point to this one and say that deliberate dehydration and starvation is acceptable.

99 posted on 03/23/2005 11:35:09 AM PST by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: All
All I know for certain is that the clock is ticking, and if someone can act, they should do so NOW.

They can argue about whether or not it was a justifiable action later.

100 posted on 03/23/2005 11:36:22 AM PST by Nuzcruizer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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