Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Constitution & Congress: Where’s their power to get involved in Schiavo case?
U.S. Constitution via House of Representatives website ^ | 3/21/05

Posted on 03/21/2005 12:05:39 PM PST by Wolfstar

United States Constitution

Article I. Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: constitution; delegated; houseof; power; representatives; schiavo; terri; terrischiavo; us
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-569 next last

United States Constitution

Article. III. Section. 2.

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; --between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

1 posted on 03/21/2005 12:05:44 PM PST by Wolfstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar


Didn't you listen to Rush today?

Congress controls the courts. Article 4 or 5 I think.



2 posted on 03/21/2005 12:07:46 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell ( CONSERVATIVE FIRST-Republican second.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar


Article. IV.
Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.


3 posted on 03/21/2005 12:09:18 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell ( CONSERVATIVE FIRST-Republican second.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
The United States Constitution does not authorize Congress to involve itself in an individual legal matter. If the Senate had agreed to what the House originally wanted to do, which was to craft a law applying to all similar cases, then they would have been on solid Constitutional ground. However, the law they crafted was narrowly tailored to one individual case. For this reason, I suspect it will be found unconstitutional should matters get that far.
4 posted on 03/21/2005 12:10:00 PM PST by Wolfstar (If you can lead, do it. If you can't, follow. If you can't do either, become a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell

Seems it would be easier to save an endangered toad than a human being.


5 posted on 03/21/2005 12:10:14 PM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

While I sympathize with Terri, I agree that this is not a federal issue. Congress and the federal courts should stay out of it.


6 posted on 03/21/2005 12:11:03 PM PST by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: Wolfstar
Congress isn't voting on whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed, they are referring it to a Federal court and to a different judge!




WHICH IS CONSTITUTIONAL
8 posted on 03/21/2005 12:11:34 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell ( CONSERVATIVE FIRST-Republican second.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LightCrusader



Congress is COMPLETELY WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION. They are giving the case to a Federal judge!



9 posted on 03/21/2005 12:12:24 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell ( CONSERVATIVE FIRST-Republican second.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell

So they will just shop around judges until they get one that will decide in their favor? What if the federal judge also dides against Terri?


10 posted on 03/21/2005 12:13:09 PM PST by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
Didn't you listen to Rush today?

No. Instead, I consulted the United States Constitution. The relevant sections are posted above on this thread.

11 posted on 03/21/2005 12:13:47 PM PST by Wolfstar (If you can lead, do it. If you can't, follow. If you can't do either, become a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: conserv13

more of the same


12 posted on 03/21/2005 12:13:55 PM PST by tfecw (Vote Democrat, It's easier than working)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

Article 3, Section 1
"The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

So Congress can ordain and establish inferior courts. Who knew Congress has the power to establish a court or disestablish one too.


13 posted on 03/21/2005 12:14:08 PM PST by MisterRepublican (I DEMAND THAT FOX NEWS GET JENNIFER ECCLESTON BACK FROM NBC!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
US Constitution, Article. III.,Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

I am not entirely sure that the bill explicitly involves Terri Schiavo anyway, but rather applies to all such cases. I don't have the bill text handy, though.

The Schiavo threads on here are getting downright nasty. Just a word of warning. I'll try and get that bill text.

14 posted on 03/21/2005 12:15:23 PM PST by AZ_Cowboy ("Be ever vigilant, for you know not when the master is coming")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell

Article IV, Section 1 has to do with relationships between the states. It speaks to laws enacted in one state being given full faith and credit in all the states. It has no bearing on the Schiavo case whatsoever.


15 posted on 03/21/2005 12:15:51 PM PST by Wolfstar (If you can lead, do it. If you can't, follow. If you can't do either, become a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell

It is the power of judicial review which is one of the powers of checks and balances the Congress has.


16 posted on 03/21/2005 12:16:09 PM PST by DarthVader (John "Diarrhea of the Mouth" Kerry = Vile Smelling Excrement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar


Good post.


17 posted on 03/21/2005 12:17:04 PM PST by onyx (Robert Frost "Good fences make good neighbors." Build the fence, Mr. President and Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
Congress isn't voting on whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed, they are referring it to a Federal court and to a different judge!

If Congress had passed a law saying all such cases must be referred to a federal judge for review, I believe they would have been on stronger Constitutional ground. Doing it for a single individual is where the problem lies. The House wanted the law to be more widely applicable, but the Senate would not agree, unfortunately.

18 posted on 03/21/2005 12:18:08 PM PST by Wolfstar (If you can lead, do it. If you can't, follow. If you can't do either, become a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MisterRepublican; Wolfstar

"So Congress can ordain and establish inferior courts."

They didn't make a court. They made a law to get someone into an established Federal Court.


19 posted on 03/21/2005 12:18:11 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar; MisterRepublican


ARTICLE 3, and 3

and also


What about CRUEL and UNUSUAL Punishment?

What about the right to LIFE LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness?

these are Federal issues!

W


20 posted on 03/21/2005 12:18:33 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell ( CONSERVATIVE FIRST-Republican second.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MisterRepublican

Yes, Article 3 Section 1 makes the courts subordinate to the legislative branch.


21 posted on 03/21/2005 12:19:29 PM PST by demlosers (Soylent Green is made in Florida)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar



That's not the issue. The issue is, you asked whether this was Constitutional or not. It is.


22 posted on 03/21/2005 12:19:49 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell ( CONSERVATIVE FIRST-Republican second.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell

The bill text from THOMAS (S.686)
S 686 CPS


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 686
For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 20, 2005
Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. MARTINEZ, and Mr. SANTORUM) introduced the following bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed







AN ACT
For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO.

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.

Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.

SEC. 3. RELIEF.

After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING.

Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.

SEC. 6. NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.

Nothing in this act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim related--

(1) to assisting suicide,

(2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.

SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.

Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.

SEC. 8. NO EFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1990.

Nothing in this act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990.

SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

It is the Sense of the Congress that the 109th Congress should consider policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care.


23 posted on 03/21/2005 12:20:40 PM PST by AZ_Cowboy ("Be ever vigilant, for you know not when the master is coming")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: conserv13

I hope you're not holding your breath on that question. But that IS the question I have. What will they all do if that judge finds no reason to overturn Florida courts? I suppose it can be appealed to SCOTUS, but they have already refused the case once.


24 posted on 03/21/2005 12:20:43 PM PST by Trust but Verify (Pull up a chair and watch history being made.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell

The bill text from THOMAS (S.686)
S 686 CPS


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 686
For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 20, 2005
Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. MARTINEZ, and Mr. SANTORUM) introduced the following bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed







AN ACT
For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO.

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.

Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.

SEC. 3. RELIEF.

After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING.

Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.

SEC. 6. NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.

Nothing in this act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim related--

(1) to assisting suicide,

(2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.

SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.

Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.

SEC. 8. NO EFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1990.

Nothing in this act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990.

SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

It is the Sense of the Congress that the 109th Congress should consider policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care.


25 posted on 03/21/2005 12:20:44 PM PST by AZ_Cowboy ("Be ever vigilant, for you know not when the master is coming")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
A private bill is not unconstitutional per se. It would have to grant Terri's parents special privileges or treatment not available to other citizens. All the law does is allow them to file a case. I don't believe a federal court would find that a constitutional infirmity; for to find it as such is to deny them recourse to the courts of law and to deny them justice.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
26 posted on 03/21/2005 12:20:52 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AZ_Cowboy


The Courts get their power from Congress.


27 posted on 03/21/2005 12:21:04 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell ( CONSERVATIVE FIRST-Republican second.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MisterRepublican
The Congress establishes -- meaning creates and funds -- all lower federal courts. However, the Supreme Court governs/manages them. Here's the controlling language from the Constitution:

Article III, Section 2

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
28 posted on 03/21/2005 12:21:44 PM PST by Wolfstar (If you can lead, do it. If you can't, follow. If you can't do either, become a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
A short and cogent answer from The Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal:

Think of an analogy to the writ of habeas corpus. As John Eastman of the Claremont Institute points out, "We have federal court review of state court judgments all the time in the criminal law context." The bill before Congress essentially treats the Florida judgment as a death sentence, warranting federal habeas review. Mrs. Schiavo is not on life support. The court order to remove the feeding tube is an order to starve her to death. Moreover, Mrs. Schiavo is arguably being deprived of her life without due process of law, a violation of the 14th Amendment that Congress has the power to address.

The whole article is worth a read.

29 posted on 03/21/2005 12:22:07 PM PST by TonyInOhio (Never give in. Never give in. Never. Never. Never.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

Congress has authority to give jurisdiction to federal courts to hear federal cases. The problem with this particular matter is that there doesn't appear to be a federal case for the court to hear at all, regardless of the grant of jurisdiction. Congress can give jurisdiction to the court; but neither Congress nor the court can pull a case out of its ass, which is what they're trying to do here.


30 posted on 03/21/2005 12:22:22 PM PST by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
he United States Constitution does not authorize Congress to involve itself in an individual legal matter

On the other hand, Congress does a great job of making sure American horses aren't fed to foreigners.

SENATOR FEINSTEIN'S HORSE SLAUGHTER BILL
"A bill worthy of support will be introduced soon in Congress by California's Senator Dianne Feinstein to prohibit the slaughter of American horses for human consumption abroad."

Barney Frank co-sponsored a similar bill in the House.

31 posted on 03/21/2005 12:22:27 PM PST by syriacus (Why ask for physician-assisted-suicide in OR, when you can save money by "peacefully" starving?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
They didn't make a court. They made a law to get someone into an established Federal Court.

Good point, Shermy, and one I overlooked.

32 posted on 03/21/2005 12:22:28 PM PST by Wolfstar (If you can lead, do it. If you can't, follow. If you can't do either, become a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
Congress controls the courts.

HUH? Congress CONTROLS the courts? Doesn't that violate separation of powers? What happened to three branches of government?

33 posted on 03/21/2005 12:22:51 PM PST by StoneColdGOP ("What does Marsellus Wallace look like?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AZ_Cowboy

So in summary it does mention Terri. It appears to be an expansion of venue.


34 posted on 03/21/2005 12:23:36 PM PST by AZ_Cowboy ("Be ever vigilant, for you know not when the master is coming")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
We have illegal left wing radical courts and a reaction to this in Congress and the House. Newtons law sates for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. They may not be able to impeach the judges but they can make new law and do not have to circumvent it.
35 posted on 03/21/2005 12:23:38 PM PST by mountainlyons (alienated vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AZ_Cowboy; goldstategop; Wolfstar
It is good and right. Life, even ne life is precious. Terri is not a vegetable as is misleadingly and falsely reported. She is alive, moving, and aware.



As president Bush said 'It is better to err on the side of life'

There is no Right to die.
36 posted on 03/21/2005 12:24:05 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell ( CONSERVATIVE FIRST-Republican second.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Thanks, Onyx. Got to make so-called conservatives think about the Constitutional implications.

While I have the opportunity, is all well with you and yours?

37 posted on 03/21/2005 12:24:35 PM PST by Wolfstar (If you can lead, do it. If you can't, follow. If you can't do either, become a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

Where is the power of the courts to get involved? It's not in the Constitution. So that means the court must get its power from the legislature, and if it does get its power from the legislature, then the legislature has the right to change that legal authority.


38 posted on 03/21/2005 12:24:54 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

I hope we remember these arguments when some skid is on death row i doubt the rats will be sayin the federal courts dont have authority


39 posted on 03/21/2005 12:25:28 PM PST by italianquaker (CATHOLIC AND I VOTE BUSH=MANDATE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell

Cruel and unusual punishment applies only to criminal cases. As for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that's comes from the Declaration of Independence, not from the controlling law of our land, the United States Constitution.


40 posted on 03/21/2005 12:26:40 PM PST by Wolfstar (If you can lead, do it. If you can't, follow. If you can't do either, become a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: conserv13

What if the federal judge also dides against Terri?

======

Sorry... I'm prohibited from giving you a truthful answer, because
it would be considered promoting violence against the *&#$@&
judge, and that's an absolute NO NO on FreeRepublic !!! ;-))


41 posted on 03/21/2005 12:26:40 PM PST by GeekDejure ( LOL = Liberals Obey Lucifer !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: StoneColdGOP

For sure they control the lower Federal courts. They can abolish or establish them as they see fit. I'd like them to abolish the ninth circuit. :)


42 posted on 03/21/2005 12:26:47 PM PST by demlosers (Soylent Green is made in Florida)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
The 14th Amendment made the bill of rights guarantees applicable to state actions, and not only federal actions.

The woman may be in jeopardy of being denied her life without due process of law, in violation of the due process clause of the US Constitution. That is, despite her case going through the due process of state courts, her rights to due process may have been violated from a federal perspective.

Congress reached no substantive conclusion on the issue one way or the other. They just used their legitimate Constitutional power to craft jurisdiction for a federal court to hear the matter. What that federal court decides (and what any appeals related to the matter concludes) stands.

This isn't rocket science, pal.
43 posted on 03/21/2005 12:27:07 PM PST by HitmanLV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

Congress has the ability to define the jurisdiction of every federal court - except (at least in some instances) the supreme court. That is what this law did - it assigned jurisdiction in this matter to a federal court for review.

Oh, and the constitution prohibits "bills of attainder" that prescribe punishment to an individual. It does not prohibit laws that benefit an individual (although there is a valid argument to be had concerning the tradeoff between specificity and unintended consequences of broader bills).


44 posted on 03/21/2005 12:27:36 PM PST by MortMan (Man who run behind car get exhausted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

This is a quick and dirty answer that is not based on a careful study of the bill or the issue, so this is subject to clarification or qualification when I consider it more carefully, but . . . .

There are two clauses that collectively might justify this legislation. The most important, which I do not believe has yet been mentioned in this thread, is Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which gives Congress power to enforce the provisions of (inter alia) Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment by appropriate legislation. Section 1, in turn, guarantees that no person will be deprived of life without due process of law. If there is a serious question about whether the process by which Terry Schiavo is being deprived of life comports with this provision, there is grounds for Congress to legislate under Section 5.

The "appropriate legislation" under Section 5 could easily include legislation pertaining to the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

The bottom line is that the enumerations of congressional power in Article I do not carry the day here. The Fourteenth Amendment might.


45 posted on 03/21/2005 12:27:45 PM PST by tenuredprof
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
The United States Constitution does not authorize Congress to involve itself in an individual legal matter

Good! Guess Roe V Wade can now be overturned, thrown-out, whatever!
46 posted on 03/21/2005 12:27:55 PM PST by hushpad (The Slippery Slope? The Judiciary passed it a few miles back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AZ_Cowboy
Thanks for posting the actual bill. I had not read the language before. So it is specific not even to Terri, but to her parents. In other words, it goes even further into potentially unconstitutional territory by taking sides in a legal dispute.
47 posted on 03/21/2005 12:28:39 PM PST by Wolfstar (If you can lead, do it. If you can't, follow. If you can't do either, become a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

Where have you been? Try rereading the 14th amendment.


48 posted on 03/21/2005 12:29:15 PM PST by ClintonBeGone (In politics, sometimes it's OK for even a Wolverine to root for a Buckeye win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, section 1 of which reads:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

"Terri's Law" granted the US federal courts power to review decisions taken in this case by the Florida state courts. The most frequent use of the 14th amendment, is by death row inmates who have been sentenced for capital crimes in state courts, and appeal to the federal courts, claiming the state process was so deficient as to deprive them of "life" without "due process of law".

Terri's Law is, without question, constitutional.


49 posted on 03/21/2005 12:29:44 PM PST by RepublicanCentury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

>>Doing it for a single individual is where the problem lies.<<

If that's where you see the problem, then there's no problem. There's nothing in the constitution prohibiting such actions, and I don't think either this court, the Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court is going to hang any unconstitutional ruling on the idea of Congress having only expressed powers (i.e. can't do anything that's not expressly permitted). THAT would open up the floodgates of litigation to virtually everything Congress has done in the last 40 years. All one needs is standing to bring a case, and you're in.


50 posted on 03/21/2005 12:29:58 PM PST by 1L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-569 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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