I doubt that he even knows any Republicans or Conservatives. It is like saying "the American People" want __________. Since when does he know what "the American People" want?! It's the same crap the Clintons pulled when he was being IMPEACHED!
Posted on 04/09/2005 5:49:59 PM PDT by Crackingham
Yes.
And Congress ALSO has the power to prevent the Federal Courts from reviewing any law it passes, simply by saying so in the text of the law.
Therefore, Congress could simply pass a Federal law prohibiting same-sex marriage and it would NOT be reviewable by the Federal Courts.
However, House Judiciary Chair Sensenbrenner would prefer that marriage remain a State issue.
I rather like you style--but prefer a .30-06 to the spear.
In such a case, it also wouldn't be enforceable by those same courts, so it'd be pretty much a dead letter.
I believe the emphasis should be put on people's "right to live." Under no circumstances should anyone who does not have a signed, notarized statemant that they want to die, be put to death. If Michael would have had to prove it by producing a notarized will, Terri would still be alive today.
I agree, they should be arressted from the bench for not following the Constitution of this country and go to jail for murderous actions!!!
I thought our right to live was inherent. I now realize--I have been fooled. It really is about the budget and the Dems are going to fix healthcare and cram pro-life back at the Republicans while they stand by and say pro-life, pro-life but NO I will not pay for it.
This what they should have been doing all along.
Which comes back once again to my original question:
Do we have a constitutional "right to die"?
If you think that we do, then you have been suckered into the secularist's agenda.
My thoughts are as follows:
Do we have a "right to die"?
The dilemma that we are now faced with and sadly brought on by our nation's courts is multi-faceted. First, the determination of who exactly has a "life not worthy of living" now becomes entirely subjective. Not only from individual to individual and from state to state, but from nation to nation as well.
The dangerously seductive arguement that many Americans seem to have unwittingly accepted is that we as individuals have a constitutional "right to die". Simply put, we don't.
Our nation's Supreme Court seems to think that the "right to die" is a liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. It may in fact be a liberty, but it is not a fundamental or natural right. While the Ninth Amendment might seem to imply that we do in fact have additional fundamental or natural rights, what the court fails to recognize is that, it is not with their power to grant us those additional rights. Those fundamental rights are God given rights, natural rights, i.e., rights we possess by nature and not by law. To give an analogy, I have a right to go to Heaven, it is a liberty that I possess and yet the court cannot grant me that right. Likewise, the court cannot grant me the "right to die", only God can, and only when he chooses.
The courts now find themselves in a dilemma now by basing all their current and future judgements for other cases on a mistake made back in 1990 where our court played God and granted a "right" that they actually had no power to grant. The "right to die".
Throughout this recent case, the arguement accepted by the court seems to have centered on "This was Terri's wish." and "This is what Terri would have wanted." Im sure Terri like many of us also wants to go to Heaven.
Very well then, if the court feels that Terri can choose that she does not want to live her life based on her medical condition, then how can the same court deny a person who makes the choice i.e. the liberty that they don't want to live their life as a prisoner, as a drug addict, as a sick person, as a disabled or retarded person, as an only child, or as an ugly person, the list goes on. Surely if the court feels that the "right to die" is a liberty protected by the Due Process Clause then anyone at anytime can take their own life and choose the time of their death.
Secondly, and yet even more sinister, who (other than the individual concerned) has the right to decide in cases such as this? The parents, guardian, husband/wife or the State?
Yes. It also means that Congress can set terms of service and limit jurisdiction.
Quite a brazen hit piece.
"Tom DeLay Under-fire-for-his-use-of-campaign-dollars-and-other-ethical-problems."
What is that, his full Indian name?
I saw this article on a blog. We all die but we do not have a right to take someone else's life. Suicide by one's own hand is uncontrollable.
Did you read the comments to your article? I was astonished.
The Dems and the ACLU having been assulting judges for years. Unless they are Left-Wing.
On which essay?
I doubt that he even knows any Republicans or Conservatives. It is like saying "the American People" want __________. Since when does he know what "the American People" want?! It's the same crap the Clintons pulled when he was being IMPEACHED!
News at 6.... The adulterous, coke-laden, traitorous and impeached former POTUS, Bill Clinton, will give an exclusive interview regarding all the mysterious deaths surrounding his career, plus the sell-out of our national security to the Chinese, for political dollars..
Two years ago at my daughter's Christmas party in Houston we met her new neighbors, both Reuter's employees, that she had invited as a courtesy. Last year they put up a big Kerry-Edwards on their lawn. Needless to say they weren't invited to my daughter's Christmas 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.