Just damn.
If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...
Posted on 03/30/2005 6:44:50 PM PST by watchdog_writer
I have great respect for Ambassador Keyes, and for his acumen, but his article on World Net Daily suggesting that if Governor Bush does not call out the State Police, or I assume, also the National Guard to save Terri’s life, he is derelict in his duty. Ambassador Keys owes us a better argument than the practically off the cuff argument in his article. Ambassador Keyes is not alone in his harsh criticism of Governor Bush, but I am not with them in this.
When Governor Bush moved the legislature of Florida to pass Terri’s Law it did so in two days. Arguably the Governor had sufficient constitutional power without passing a special bill. Under Article IV, Section (8)(a) of the Constitution of Florida 1968, the Governor has the right to grant pardons, restore civil rights, as well as other executive powers. Florida courts have abstained from becoming involved in this admitted matter of executive grace. The action taken by Governor Bush pursuant to Terri’s Law simply guaranteed to Terri her constitutional rights. The bill did not change any law that applied to her case; nevertheless, judges declared Terri’s Law unconstitutional.
Terri’s case has given the pro-life advocates much to be angry about, but it was not Jeb Bush who decided to starve Terri that was Judge Greer. It was not Jeb Bush who stood in front of cameras and told the world, as Terri was being starved to death, that she looked peaceful and contented, that was George Felos, the same attorney that outlawyered Pamela Campbell. Jeb Bush was not the one who gave Ms. Campbell awards for being an outstanding attorney, that was the St. Petersburg Bar Association. It was not Jeb Bush that refused to give Terri a new trial that was the Federal Bench That the National Guard is not marching in Pinellas County has outraged pro-life advocates more than what they view as judicial tyranny.
The power of the courts to decide whether or not life support should be continued or discontinued does not result from any inherent power of the government to order such a result. The decision is not even one to be made by the surrogate of the incompetent, only the court can decide if the facts and circumstances of the case meet the judicial criteria set forth in prior decisions and statutes. It is now proper therefore for Governor Bush, regardless of his personal beliefs, not to order the feeding tubes to be reconnected after a court of competent jurisdiction has ordered their removal.
The fallacy of Ambassador Keyes’ argument is that he fails to honor the rule of law, and he disregards the fact that while we can question Judge Greer’s decision, his was a court of competent jurisdiction. The parties were given due process according to each and every judge who considered the case, although I believe that in such cases a jury should decide; and, yes the process was flawed, but the order was issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, and in my opinion, it would be executive tyranny for the Governor to mobilize the police power of the state to contravene a lawful order of the court, no matter how much he may disagree with the verdict.
The authority of the court to order the removal of the feeding tubes from Terri Marie was based upon the law in effect at the time of that decision, but when the State Legislature passed subsequent legislation, the judge’s decision was at that moment in time in conflict with the law. Courts in such situations often grant injunctions that require compliance by either affirmative action or non-action. In fact in Terri Marie’s case the court did issue an order to remove the tubes, and then later, in compliance with a duly enacted law, the tubes were reinserted in order to maintain the status quo, and to prevent irreparable harm.
Terri’s Law gave the Governor the clear statutory authority to order the tubes to be reconnected, in doing so Governor Bush did nothing more than any judge in the judicial branch would have the authority to do. He acted responsibly and compassionately by using his executive power to enforce legislation. It is his sworn duty to uphold the constitution of the State of Florida and the Laws of the State duly enacted by the Florida Legislature pursuant to their Constitutional authority.
When Governor Bush ordered the doctors to reconnect Terri to life sustaining nutrients, he did not act arbitrarily, nor did the Legislature grant some special power to the Governor. The Legislature responded, as they should have to a public outcry by changing the law. Courts do this very same thing every day of the year in every State and Federal court. Courts make law when they decide cases, and when the tide of public opinion changes, their decisions change.
We have seen the courts overturn decisions that violated the civil rights of innocent people powerless to defend themselves against ignorance and prejudice. The collective conscience of a free people is embodied in every branch of government. The legislature that defines it, the courts that explain it, and the executive that enforces it. When government responds to the will of the majority, filtered through moral elected representatives, guided by tradition, and protective of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the State and Federal Constitutions, there is no greater institution. May God comfort Terri Marie and her family, and God bless Governor Bush. He has done all that is within his power.
I'm more than open to the argument that Jeb has done everything possible to save Terri.
The fact remains, however, she is being starved to death in the State where he is Governor. Where does the buck stop?
By no means. The Legislature has voted, and the governor agrees that the feeding tube should be restored. This represents the wishes of two of the three branches of the government of the state of Florida, yet "wussy Bush" refuses to override the judge, thus allowing one of three "co-equal" branches of government to rule the other two.
Bush should send in the state police, with himself at the head, and tell the local cops to stand down.
Not. Two of the three branches of state government agree on a course of action. That is sufficient to overrule the wishes of the single "judicial" branch. Otherwise, the three branches are not "co-equal". Jeb Bush is a wuss.
Thank you. This needed to be said...and you said it well.
Thank you -- this was definitely needed!
May God be with Terri and her Family and out of this travesty may the American people finally realize that every life is important including that of the unborn.
If the courts are running the show, why waste public money on a Governor and legislature?
The buck stops with the voters. They elected Judge Greer, they elected the legislatures that did not provide for a jury trial for Terri, the buck stops with us.
Yes, where does the buck stop, especially now that the courts have proven themselves to be lacking?
If I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't, then I damned sure wanna be damned for doing what is morally right.
I really don't blame Jeb for this, but he did sign the rule including food/hydration withdrawl as life support.
I'm sure he had no idea...
But he cannot intervene now, on a law he signed.
Dubya didn't sign it.
DK
Pipe dreams
Did you read the whole article?
While Jeb, imo, would not be in dereliction of duty by the letter as today of law -- he would must definitely be in dereliction of higher duty of law. That same kind of higher duty as understood and acted upon by our Founders during the the *by-the-then-letter-illegal* Revolution.
Last I checked, the court has no troops to support their murder. Jeb has troops.
Thank you taking the time to put into words what so many of us are thinking.
Wrong. That was NEVER the intent of the writers of the Constitution. The legislative body was always intended to be the THE final arbiter---NOT the court system. The courts have simply usurped that authority because the legislatures have proven spineless.
"If one branch flat out ignores one of the others, we have a constitutional crisis, and that's not good."
So, having one branch that flat out ignores the wishes of the other two is somehow LESS of a constitutional crisis?? I don't think so.
"stops in the courts"? With some two-bit Probate Judge? I can't buy into that. We have murderers in prison all over this country who were sentenced to die long before Terri's initial medical problems back in 1990. They're still living as a result of their "due process" appeals, but this inconvenient "surplus" wife is being executed in a long and gruesome manner. Sorry, it just don't compute.
If we go along treating these rulings of men as though it constitutes the "rule of law", I guess we deserve whatever we get.
I'm not familiar with the "rule" your taking about. Do you have a citation?
So did the Bolsheviks.
With the State and Federal Judges that both condemned her to death.
The Federal one took Jeb out of this.
Michael is also looking for millions after her death in book, movie and speaking deals as the new darling of the culture of death.
Exactly! We just just ain't got anyone with balls enough to do it.
No, that's the way the courts WANT you to think it works, and it "has" worked that way because the legislatures have refused to exercise their full powers. The legislative branch was and is supposed to be the final arbiter---NOT the courts. The legislature can change the state Constitution---the legislature can impeach judges. That it has thus far refused to exercise these powers doesn't mean they don't HAVE the power.
"We need to be looking at how corrupt our court system has become filled with activist judges who impose their will on the majority of us."
Yes, and one of the remedies is for the legislature to remove justices from office (by impeachment) for such malfeasment of office.
Argue the law and constitutionality after safeguarding Terri's life. While the parties argue, Terri slips toward an irreversible end. Move her from her husband's and his lawyer's control. Restore her feeding tube. Then argue all you want.
If you don't really have anything new to say, maybe you should cut back on the vanities.
What was their intention? To murder, or save life.
It would have helped if the Schindlers got attorneys that were not better suited to storefronts in malls.
2 Branches out of three in the State Government decided at one time that she was not being fairly treated.
One branch out of three Overruled them.
That One branch has set itself up as a dictator over Elected Representatives.
That one branch should have it's offices occupied by State Troops until such time as it can be brought back under control.
No, he has NOT done all that he can do.
He's only done all that was politically expediant to do.
Thank you. This definitely needed to be said.
I think that rule went by the books about two weeks ago.
Then Terri Schiavo has been denied "due process"? If that's what you're saying, then I guess we might agree.
But, as for it getting "over with", I don't think that's going to happen. Oh, she'll die alright, but it won't be over.
There's no "fallacy" in Keyes's argument.
Any "law" or set of "laws" or court orders, etc., that result in the murder of an innocent woman, are null.
Jeb Bush's obligation to save Terri's life remains in full force, no matter what fictitious "laws" some will claim he is violating.
The alternative to Keyes's argument is dictatorship by judges, exercising unlimited power over life and death. That is the alternative you are promoting, and which Jeb Bush is promoting by pretending to be unable to save Terri.
What a frightening concept: to expect the government to send in troops whenever the chief executive doesn't agree with a court ruling. Sounds a bit too Soviet for my liking.
Actually, viewed in a particular way, the courts do have troops. They have the power to issue contempt of court judgements, without further review, I believe. It is this power to financially carve up anyone who disagrees with them, or stands in their way, that sets them apart from the other branches of government, and enables a creeping tyranny.
If Governor Bush or various legislators wish to penalize those with who they disagree, they may arrest them, but must,in the end, rely on a conviction/judgement from the courts to penalize. The only certain check is the power of the Governor to pardon. How can this apply to civil issues? Should this not be explored, even if it is too late in this case?
I cannot believe that the power seized by the judiciary was ever envisioned in the founding of the Republic. But many here perhaps can help me and others to a fuller understanding.
Excellent post, watchdog...
Just damn.
If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...
I echo your sentiments. This is out of control.
I am sick to death of hearing the hysteria of Randall Terry and his followers directed at Jeb.
unfortunately that is the way it works I wish it were not so; however, if voters were properly educated, instead of being misinformed by the MSM, perhaps they would insist upon judges who are faithfully discharging the duties of their office. Has it escaped your attention that the Supreme Court by declaring laws unconstitutional is legislating from the bench, and their laws do not reflect the will of the majority. Make sure that President Bush's nomination are approved.
Those are the arguments of systematic murderers such as those of the Third Reich.
Corrupt judges and courts have been ordering barbaric atrocities throughout history and they must be made to kneel to a higher moral law by the enraged people themselves.
Only barbarians would starve someone like this and no legal justification will ever exist to slowly and painfully starve a human being to death.
Such barbaric action is beyond humanity and deserves the full measure of loathing by moral and righteous people.
These are the rulings of despots and tyrants who think of humans as disposable subjects, beneath the value of animals.
The sickness and depravity of this murder is unveiled by the simple question: If a court has ruled this woman must die, why is she not to be killed swiftly and humanely? Even mass murderers cannot be starved to death. There is not a soul in America who does not know starvation is a death sentence, clearly in the category of "cruel and unusual punishment."
She would die more swiftly being drawn and quartered.
Terri Schiavo cannot find enough humanity left in the legal system of the United States to merit the swift death of a mass murderer.
This is not a law demanding allegiance. It is pure evil.
A rule of law built upon, and justifying, evil acts cannot hold a society together. It will tear a society to pieces.
We richly deserve our destruction and we will see it.
I'd be very interested in seeing what authority you can cite for your position? Which is not to say that I believe that any such law should be constitutional. In this case the law is constitutional, it was how that law was interpreted by Judge Greer that has resulted in injustice. Did you read Ambassador Keyes' article? If so what is his constitutional authority for his position?
Maybe you can form a militia? As bad as we think his decision was, Judge Greer has the constitutional authority to make it. We are responsible for electing him, we are to blame. We have the right to vote him out of office and see to it that a conservative judge take his place.
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.