Posted on 03/23/2005 7:40:30 AM PST by topher
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.
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.
Most husbands aren't trying to murder their wife.
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?
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.
"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.
Awesome article, actually. Thanks for posting this.
The court is taking that away at this moment by upholding Terri's man given "right to die". It's already a done deal.
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.
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.
I'm with both of you
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.
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.
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.
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.
They can argue about whether or not it was a justifiable action later.
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.