[Defiant]

Let me spell out one scenario for you, and see if you think the President has no role:

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.

[Nik Naym]

"Allowing Terri to die would violate this statute."

Thank you for posting exactly what I was thinking about this. I would only make one change to your post, and that would be to change the word "Allowing" to the word "Causing" in the above quoted sentence.

Nik

[bigeasy_70118]

The executive branch has no authority to enforce a legislative subpoena until the Speaker of the House or the President of the Senate introduce and then pass a resolution finding Michael Schiavo and George Greer in contempt of congress. As far as I know, this hasn't and won't be done. So under your scenario, the President has no role to enforce the subpoenas.

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.