The LP has a lot in common with the Democrats in that way. That says a lot.
The LP has a lot in common with the Democrats in that way. That says a lot.
The US Constitution guarantees certain rights. Among them are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit....
When indididual states are perceived to be violating those rights...the federal government has the right to investigate, legislate, and intervene to certain extents.
If, for example, Montana ever decided to unilaterally declare martial law and suspend the Constitution (or just the parts that it didn't like), that would be a federal case, too. The Republicans wouldn't sit back and say, "Yo, that's cool."
TS
Buh Bye.
Saw your screen name. Read your homepage. Both tell me all I need to know.
BTW, what's a parnet?
This cuts it for me. Even though I think of myself as having a libertarial bent, I can't support this juvenile "analysis".
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
The State of Florida failed to protect Terri's life and the GOP stepped in because it was the RIGHT thing to do. The Federal Court then failed to follow the instructions of Congress to review the facts of the case. What they did was rule on process and even that was flawed as the dissenting opinions clearly state.
The Congress screwed up because they did nothing to force the Court to review the facts as the Court was properly empowered and instructed to do.
If Congress' order was un-Constitutional the Federal Court could've vacated the order as such and made no ruling at all. Instead they accepted the jurisdictional grant and then failed to execute the order they were given jurisdiction to execute.
Finally, when individual rights are violated then state's rights are irrelevant. Every time.
If you guys want to develop any credibility you need to differentiate yourselves from the Democrats.
Was it RIGHT to starve a living Human Being to death?
The answer is NO! and no rational being can say anything different. All retoric aside - - - It was not proper to starve a human being to death. Cease and desist, any other opinion is wrong.
That is what the Republicans were protecting.
Republicans support every state's right that is consonant with human rights in general, and the Bill of Rights in particular. It's not only disingenuous; it's positively monstrous to suggest that there is any such thing as a "state's right" to murder, or for that matter, to enslave, its citizens. Given the choice between mindless sophistry and the Rights of Man, commend me to the latter every time.
States have the right to kill innocent citizens? Cool! Let the killings begin! And if we can kill them, can't we also enslave them? States rights are awesome!
And we shouldn't have sent the FBI to Mississippi in the Sixties? Killing of civil rights workers was just a states rights issue?
There are a lot of arguments on both sides of this issue, but there is nothing wrong in the Congress & President wanting to have an independent review of the facts in the case, especially when a life was at stake.
It seems to me that a "life issue" trumps states' rights.
An accusations of hypocricy, especially in this case, is lame.
The Schiavo case was about life and death which knows no boundaries. Standing for life is more important than any of the 50 States right to determine who lives or dies.
LP News...about as exciting and factually sound as Dan Rather.
Some Libertarians will show themselves as frauds over this issue.
Without Life, there is no liberty.
There's a reason Libertarians get zero votes.
Ben,
LIFE IS NOT A STATE govt's OR A FEDERAL govt's ISSUE - IT'S A LIFE ISSUE.
What is it about LIFE that you do not get ..??
And .. if you want hypocrisy - check out the woman (Juliet Yackel - A&E 11pm PT) who worked round the clock to save the LIFE of a CONVICTED KILLER - while she never said a word or lifted a finger to save the life of an innocent disabled woman. You people make me sick.