Posted on 03/21/2005 12:05:39 PM PST by Wolfstar
If they are not going to provide for the protection of the right of a person to life....none of the rest matters.
I would also point out that very shortly before Terri's mysterious "collapse," she had stated before witnesses that she wanted to divorce him, i.e., she DID NOT WANT him making important decisions for her.
Inferior federal courts get their jurisdiction from Congress. It's that simple. It's certainly within the power of Congress to expand, reduce or change these courts' jurisdiction.
"Didn't you listen to Rush today? "
LOL - He makes a good point - just what DOES Roy Black have to say about this ? ( so far he's lost every procedure for Rush )
The argument that Congress essentially treates the Florida judgement as a death sentence warranting federal habeas review is a good one. Again, if Congress had written the bill more broadly to apply to all similar cases, I think they would be on stronger Constitutional ground. If the case does wind its way back to the Supreme Court, we shall see which point of view stands. For now, though, I think because Congress wrote their bill narrowly to apply to Mrs. Schiavo's parents, they are on shakey Constitutional ground.
Agreed
Nobody, but nobody has contended, until you, that the Supreme Court regulates the jurisdiction of the lower courts, and the language you cite, of course, does not say that. Today, it has administrative direction over the lower courts, but only because Congress has authorized it through statute. Congress establishes the lower courts, and can determine their jurisdiction if it so wishes, and in fact has limited it in the past. Congress can also, apart from the specific powers you quote, determine the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as well.
Oh, I'm sure they were. There exists a hard core group of Bush haters here who have been attacking GWB long before 2000. They'll say or do anything to tear the man down.
In the case of the endangered toad, we're discussing an entire species, not one individual member of that species.
RIGHTS AND SCHIAVO [Mark R. Levin] Attorney & Author
The right to live, or more specifically, the right not to be killed, is a fundamental right. And it's a right recognized in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. So ingrained in our society is the notion of life, that the 8th Amendment prohibits "cruel and usual punishment" (even short of death) and the 14th Amendment prohibits states from depriving any person of life without due process of law. This has nothing to do with federalism, unless you ignore the 8th and 14th Amendments. (Unlike the Left, that contorts the 14th Amendment, I'm recognizing its literal meaning.)
What really offends the Left is Congress asserting its constitutional power over a court, and not in service to the liberal agenda. Article III specifically empowers Congress to determine the jurisdiction of the federal courts, which is all it did today. It authorized a federal court to determine whether Terri Schiavo's due process rights and the right not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment were properly protected by a state court. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decided on its own that abortion was a federal question, not to be left to the states, without any constitutional basis whatsoever. It preempted every state court and legislature (and Congress, for that matter). And the Left celebrates this decision.
As for why Congress is acting here, as opposed to any other case with overlapping issues, I suppose that question could be asked whenever Congress acts. The Schiavo case has risen to national attention. So, Congress is responding. That's how representative government works. The week after the Titanic sank, Congress held its first hearings to change U.S. maritime laws.
We must not allow the Left to define the terms of this debate. It is willing to make almost any argument to protect the supremacy of the courts. And even though Congress here is instructing the federal courts to review the case, the Left objects to any congressional exercise of constitutional authority over the judiciary. As Rep. Jim Moran (Dem, VA) said yesterday, "The judiciary has spoken."
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp
LOL.....as good an explanation as I've seen.
The power of federal judicial review is not unlimited. In fact, the federal courts have quite limited power to review cases involving state laws.
In a different -- and excellent -- way, you're stating my concern with the Schiavo bill (now law). It's narrowly tailored to one specific case.
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 14
Amendment 14 - Citizenship rights
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.
The case has no business before a federal judge. Let's be honest here, it's a thinly veiled attempt to overrule a Florida court.
Penumbras are free-kill zones invented by liberals for the purpose of protecting death cultists who wish to destroy innocent human life without consequence.
Penumbras arise from blocking the greater light of the Constitution which exists for the porpose of protecting innocent human life. Indeed, at its broadest scale the Constitution has no other purpose.
A private bill is not unconstitutional and, in fact, they are passed all the time -- and offered by members of Congress of both parties and all philosophies. I heard another person say that Congress cannot pass a bill of attainder, which is true, but a bill of attainder has nothing to do with this case, either. Such bills are for punishment, not to protect life.
Right after I get done reading about emanations.
Or is it ruminations?
Exaltations?
There is a case to be made that keeping someone trapped in a virtually nonfunctional body, dependent upon others to provide the basic needs of survival, unable to move, for a prolonged period of time is indeed cruel and unusual punishment. Serial killers on death row are treated much better than that. Just imagine yourself being encased in a snug glass coffin, unable to move, unable to experience the joys of an active life, kept alive by artificial means for days, months, years. No thanks. And, the vast majority of people in the U.S. would not choose to live in this condition either, according to a recent poll.
You are confusing the merits of reinserting the feeding tube, which I favor, with the Constitutional arguments. What is the point of this extraordinary action by Congress if the Constitutional grounds will not support it in the courts? That's what this particular discussion on this thread is about -- or is intended to be about.
Bump.
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.