Posted on 04/01/2005 9:06:12 AM PST by Kenny Bunkport
Separation Of Powers: The Constitution says we have three co-equal branches of government. The Terri Schiavo case is the latest example of one branch thinking it is more equal than the others.
The attempt by Congress to extend to Schiavo the same right of access to federal courts that a convicted murderer on death row has, including the right to a new hearing based on new evidence, has been attacked in many quarters as a violation of the separation of powers and a political usurpation of judicial powers.Echoing this opinion was Judge Stanley Birch. Writing for the majority in the ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denying the final Schindler family plea to reinsert Terri's feeding tube pending a full review of the evidence, he said:
"Despite sincere and altruistic motivations, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people — our Constitution."
Sen. Rick Santorum has noted that the Constitution clearly gives Congress full control over the jurisdiction of the federal courts, including their very existence. Referring to an earlier decision by U.S. District Judge James Whittemore rejecting a request for emergency intervention, Santorum said: "What we asked for in the Congress was a new finding of fact. And this judge in this district ignored it, snubbed his nose at Congress, I think against the law."
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Good article. Congress does have equal power.
A more accurate term would be "separate but overlapping"Without the overlap, could there really be any checks and balances. What check is left on the judiciary if they ignore not only laws put in place by the people through congress but also from congress itself. I wonder if any judge believes any decision they make can be construed as unconstitutional? If the answer is no then it is clear tyranny and if it is yes then what actions from the other branches would be appropriate?
Apparently, the consensus among the jurists in the US is no.
The question, however, is profound and goes right to the intentions of the Founding Fathers regarding an "Absolute Judiciary". Judges have mistaken the "Rule of Law" to be the Rule of Judges.
Which is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended. The only body superior to Congress, in the Constitution, is the people. The problem is the people do not know this is so.
It made me sick to see the family of Judge Lefkovitz murdered, but it caused me to wonder if there are people out there who have been completely savaged by the courts with no recourse. As of yesterday, I see that the answer is "yes, there are."
AMEN
Re: "The only body superior to Congress, in the Constitution, is the people. The problem is the people do not know this is so."
Ever since events in 1865 they have been told otherwise. The GOP had something to do with that as well. I just do not see where the GOP is any good for Constitutional governance. Not any longer, not any more.
Both parties are complicit in the demise of the Constitution. The Dems in the South with the bogus concept of "states rights" and the Repubs with the passage of the plastic 14th Amendment and "due process", whatever the process is.
So you say. Just where is "states rights" in the Constitution?
The Commonwealth of Virginia had the paper to prove they were entitled to leave the Union but paper is worthless against bayonets.
And the people of this nation have a Bill of Rights, but it's worthless against the popular opinion of a minority.
Have you checked the 9th and 10th amendments lately? All of the powers of government not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution are explicitly reserved to the States and the People.
Unfortunately, our ancestors:
a) supported passage of the 16th Amendment, enabling the Federal Government to claim all national income as its own;
b) allowed FDR to twist the "General Welfare" and "Interstate Commerce" clauses into a complete abdication of the concept of limited government;
c) supported FDR in his efforts to overcome the Supreme Court's resistance to his unconstitutional laws, thus converting the federal govenment into an unchecked beast;
d) extended the reach of this all-powerful Federal Government into the regulation of personal behavior with Federal Civil Rights and Environmental Protection legislation, explicitly relegating the 9th and 10th amendment protections against the Federal Government to the trash heap of forgotten principles of goverance.
Have you checked the 9th and 10th amendments lately?
Yes! There is no mention of "states rights" in the 9th. and 10th. Amendments or anywhere else in the Constitution. AAMF, no form of government under the US Constitution has any rights whatsoever, only powers.
The Constitution and the BoR use the term "powers" for government and "rights" for individuals and the "people". Powers are distinctly different than rights. Rights are always superior, legally and morally to powers, but individuals must exercise them and it is the duty of government to use its powers to uphold rights. Powers emanate from those who have rights, not the other way around.
As you well know, the concept of states rights was explicitly used to deny Negroes their rights in the South. However, now the same sort of oppressive logic is being used to deny the 2nd Amendment rights of people who live in states without a 2nd Amendment in their state constitution. The concept is called "Collective Rights" and it is just as bogus a legal theory and position as is states rights.
Had the Confederate South won the Civil War there would be no United States, or Confederate States for that matter. We would be a balkanized North American Continent with European and Asian rulers. There would not be any rights at all, only misery.
bump
Re: "There is no mention of "states rights" in the 9th. and 10th. Amendments or anywhere else in the Constitution. AAMF, no form of government under the US Constitution has any rights whatsoever, only powers"
Correct me if I am wrong but does the Constitution, as if this is a useful conservation since it is a dead letter; say all powers not granted to the Federal Government is reserved by the states. In other words, a right to claim those powers, but alas that has been ignored for a very long time. The Federal Government was not to take powers not granted to it. Again ignored. Just because a right is trampled and ignored or abuse does not mean it is not there. But if you insist, refer to it as "State Powers" if it suits you. No one will have an idea what you are talking about, but go ahead you may start a trend.
It all seems rather useless to be arguing over obscure esoteric minutia of Constitutional Theory when the most basic of rights (individual’s rights) is treated in so callus a manner.
As to Balkanization of the country, I doubt it but either side it is a what if game.
Well I can se that you certainly don't. You don't respond well to having your veil of ignorance raised, do you?
It all seems rather useless to be arguing over obscure esoteric minutia of Constitutional Theory when the most basic of rights..
Yes, just about as useless as speculating on the condition of the USA had the Confederacy won the Civil War. Jus' keep on fightin' it Bubba, maybe some "Negrah" will come along, slap ya' all upside da hayd, and enlighten you.
Oh Yeah! Just what party do you have in mind to replace the GOP, the "White Man's Dixiecrat Party of the Confederacy? Or will it be like a Muslim Theocracy with Jesus as Allah? What if Jesus is black?
You don't even know the profound difference between rights and powers -even the framers of the Confederate Constitution did not interchange the two- how is your party going to get elected if you can't even comprehend the ballot? Pictographs!
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.