Posted on 03/23/2005 9:37:12 AM PST by xzins
Would you want a President Hillary Clinton to step in because she thinks something is more important than states' rights? Terri's life is vitally important. But so is the future and therefore, so is precedence.
Thank you. I am beyond angry about all of this.
Anyone with constitutional standing at either the state or national level should do something.
I agree with you. I was responding to a post that said the WH might be trying to find a way to deal with this without setting a precedence. I replied that if we all (not me) think stepping in would be the right thing, then why worry if it sets a precedence?
Several things have come out of this for me. 1) I have no desire to ever, ever desire to return to Florida. And 2) I will make certain that no one believes I want to be left to die, whatever the circumstances. Before this, I would not have wanted to be hooked up on life-support machines if it looked that might be permanent. When most of the country cannot tell the difference between life support and nutrition, forget it. Keep me hooked up. I don't trust the medical community who is apparently steeped in the culture of death to do anything to take me off.
Excellent posts, and right on target.
Congress has the right to conduct investigations of issues under its purview, and right now, it has the right to look into health care issues. The feds fund billions of dollars worth of health care every year, and there is no doubt that it can look into the issue of right to die issues as they impact federal health care policy. (leave aside the issue of whether the federal government should be involved with health care, the fact is they are).
Congress wants to investigate the Schiavo situation, the same way it investigated the baseball steroids issue by calling the players in to question them. This is an individual case, but it may have some implications on health care policy in general, and the fact that a state can allow a person to starve to death in this case without adequately providing for protection of her rights is something that the Congress wants to look into. So, not only does it want to examine the procedural aspects of the right to die in Florida, it may want to examine the facts of the case, to determine if an "innocent" woman can be put to death by a seemingly benign system.
So, the Congress lawfully subpoenas witnesses to a hearing, including the woman whose life is at stake. The woman, Terri, cannot testify, obviously, but her condition can. The Congress can order tests of her, and make its own determination as to her present condition, which will then be helpful to Congress in deciding what it thinks about the protections afforded by state law.
There is a federal statute that provides that tampering with or obstructing a Congressional witness, or harming evidence before a Congressional inquiry, is a felony. Allowing Terri to die would violate this statute.
The President and Congress are allowed to invoke the assistance of the US Marshalls service to protect witnesses in a congressional hearing. If not the Marshalls, there is a federal agency that delivers subpoenas and transports witnesses that would be the proper one.
The President, to uphold federal law, can therefore order the marshalls to enforce the Congressional subpoena, deliver Terri to Congress' custody and protect her life. This will include reinserting a feeding tube so she will be alive and available for Congress' investigation.
Granted, this is only one scenario. President Bush is probably examining many options. But I hope you would agree that your statement that "there is no basis in the Constitution for President's Authority to do this" is just flat wrong.
How about another even closer historical precedent, in which the feds forcibly federalized another Florida matter that involved family relationships; the death (or life) of a wife; a husbsand who demanded and got government intervention; and an intense, emotional nationwide debate?
Anybody remember Elian Gonzalez?
There was widespread outrage, and also widespread support, regarding Janet Reno's forcible abduction of little Elian from his relatives' home and return to Cuba.
Interesting how the same folks who cheered when Elian was taken by feds at gunpoint without clear legal authorization, now boo when Congress has this time actually passed a statute authorizing the feds to step in.
The question is, if the president were to forcibly intervene here, like Clinton and Eisenhower did in other contexts, would it be fair payback, would it be hypocrisy, or would it be the right thing to do?
You pardon people of crimes, and can issue a pardon to someone who has not been yet charged. But you can't pardon someone from a civil court order.
"He could grab the bully pulpit and let the people know that it is wrong, just flat wrong, to terminate the life of a defenseless and disabled woman on anything less than her own written medical directive"
That is an outstanding idea.
Absurd. The purpose of the Constitution, which is stated in the Preamble, is to promote the general welfare. Murdering Terri Schiavo does not promote the general welfare. Whatever rulings or statutes that permit her murder are null and void. Therefore, the president, legislature or governor, has every right, nay, duty, to intervene on her behalf.
Thanks for playing, we have a lovely Separation of Powers: The Home Game for you to brush up on your constitutional knowledge before posting again.
Being wrong is one thing. Being condescending is another. Being wrong and consdescending at the same time is very uncouth.
If GW was going to step in, he would have by now. WE are, by my best guess (assuming reports of Terri's current condition) 2-3 days from her death (probably closer to 2). Every day she lives without added nutrition and hydration, the further damage being done.
IF GW is stepping in - it had better be now - or he might as well just shut up.
There is a Higher Law to which we all will have to give account. And on that day the Constitution of the United Staes of America will mean absolutely NOTHING.
"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye
cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye
gave me no drink."
(Matthew 25)
See the Preamble, which declares the purpose for which the Constitution was written.
Intrinsically evil laws or judicial rulings are null and void.
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.