Posted on 04/08/2005 5:00:59 PM PDT by libertarianben
Of course not.
Reasonable people can disagree on this.
I was just hoping for more than the usual "murderer" and "nazi" accusations.
It is what it is. It's over now. Not much left but the bottom line.
People like Joni Eareckson Tada?
I like Joni Eareckson Tada. And began listening to her around 15 years ago. I've even bought some of her artwork.
However she is not in a PVS and wouldn't consider her and expert on the Terri situation.
Where did you get that idea? ...Article IV, Section 4...(quote)"The United States guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.(unquote)
Let me put it light for you..."THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN NOT INTERFERE WITH THE STATE'S RIGHTS"...period!
Quite a few doctors say she wasn't by medical definition either.
That very well states exactly where the federal govt. had the power to act. The Gov. of FL made a call and told his agent to "see what you can get done federally." That gives the 'application of the executive' (Gov. Bush) and "shall protect each of them against ... domestic violence" spells out the obligation of the U.S. gov. to intervene. States rights aren't upheld or protected by letting them run rogue.
Let's see if we disagree on this:
Was it wrong to kill Terri Shiavo?
I'd rather be a hypocrite than an accomplice to murder.
What? You're not pro-states rights?
Fill in the blank: The Federal Government interfered with Florida's State Right to ______________.
Exactly what State Right are we talking about? The state of Florida had no dog in this fight. This was about a civil right of a US citizen.
She was suffering? And you know this because....you can channel thoughts like George Felos and John Edwards? She was not hopeless and she definitely was not helpless, as her parents had every desire to "help" her.
Nice try, no can do!This is your interpretation, not the Courts.
I have come to the fixed opinion, that the invocation of the above is almost invariably disingenuous by whomever utters it, and almost always attended by ulterior motives. In Torie's perfect world, there would be no states rights, just prudential agency authority given to the states for prudential reasons. We are one nation now. The states rights notion has typically been attended by mischief, and still is, but now is embarrassingly archaic, sort of like the appendix.
Posted by Fred Nerks to Diva Betsy Ross
On News/Activism 04/06/2005 3:47:14 PM PDT · 323 of 368
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation - Investigative Programs - Civil Rights.
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/statutes.htm#section242
This fiasco is not a legal question. It is a moral, or shall we say, a lack of morals question.
You are correct about Terri should have been allowed to determine her desire of life without the interference of the Judicial Branch of the Government without any justifiable reason to STARVE HER TO HER DEATH.
Do you realize that individuals across the USA who are sentenced to death, for any number of reasons, have their arm swabbed with an alcohol pad prior to the insertion of the needle that delivers the final "juice of death." You know why they wipe the arm with the swab - - - because they don't want the patient to get an infection from the insertion of the needle.
Terri, charged with no crimes, tried for no crimes, convicted of no crimes, never had a lawyer to represent HER interests, sentenced to death by starvation, did not have a single courtesy extended to her by the Judicial Branch of the GOVERNMENT!
I stand on my original statement - - -No one has the Right to STARVE A HUMAN TO DEATH!
So, anyone pro-life has no understanding of end-of-life issues? What makes you the expert? What makes Greer an expert? Since you are a self anoited expert- perhaps you can tell us which law school Greer attended, is it the same one you have?
Please speak up, Jorge, you have my rapt attention...
Please speak up, Jorge, you have my rapt attention...
""Republicans didn't support states rights!" It's the argument of a precosious 8th grader."
"pretty much what they're learning in public schools..."
So, the "liberal" public schools are now pushing Libertarianism?
I think it has, in recent years, become more of an anti-GOP party than a truly libertarian party.
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.