Text 10355, 84 rader
Skriven 2005-03-27 11:10:16 av EARL CROASMUN (1:275/311)
     Kommentar till en text av ED CONNELL
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
 EC> That is not what the act did, and had it TRIED to do that it would have
 EC> been far more unconstitutional than it is.

 EC> The act said that IF "any parent" of hers brought a claim or suit
 EC> alleging that her rights were being violated, the claimant would have
 EC> legal standing and the US District Court would have jurisdiction.

-> So what is unconstitutional about this.

It is arguably a bill of attainder, although the writers may have
avoided that by artful language.  But it is more clear that the bill
violates the separation of powers among the federal branches as well as
being a federal intrusion upon the state government jurisdiction.  There
are a variety of other grounds that I have seen argued.  But it is moot
now since there has been no claim of any rights violation that have been
credible enough to force the Supreme Court to decide the
constitutionality.  The next time Congress tries to overrule a court
decision or a state law that it doesn't like, by passing a special law,
the fight will come back.

 EC> From 1998 to 2005, the parents brought many legal actions.  Over
and
 EC> over again, they lost.  There was never any determination that any
 EC> right was being violated.  And as far as I can tell there was never any
 EC> showing by the advocates of the congressional act that any rights
 EC> violation had been ignored or that the federal courts were unable to
 EC> already deal with violations of constitutional rights.

-> So what? 

"So what?"  So the law was meaningless.  The only thing it accomplished
was to give false hopes to the parents, get a lot of lawyers and
politicians on TV, and weaken the concept of federalism.


 EC> Nothing has been done in an unconstitutional manner

-> You decide that, but it would be more comforting to me if there were a 
-> federal judge making sure that was the case.

The fact that the federal district court and the Supreme Court have
decided that there has been no constitutional issue that has even the
bare minimum credibility to justify hearing it argued out would be one
clue.


-> What do you call keeping someone from food and water?

To repeat, the legal system has determined that she would prefer to die
rather than to have her body continue on life support with no hope of
her ever getting better.  The Florida court ruled in 2000 that she
should be allowed to die.  There is a clear distinction - relevant for
some purposes but irrelevant for other purposes - between actively
causing death and passively allowing it to happen.  Some would also draw
a distinction between food and water on one hand and medical care on the
other.  Florida law does not seem to make that distinction.  Food, heart
surgery, kidney transplants, and artificial respiration all are
considered "life support."


 EC> That ruling has withstood all appeals and all attempts to overturn it
 EC> over the last five years.  It's the law.

-> It is?  Who made this law?

In this case the state of Florida, via its constitution, legislature,
state supreme court and lesser courts.  In a broader sense, centuries of
legal development via statute and court decision, such as the
Schloendorff, Quinlan, and Cruzan cases.  State legislatures and
congress have passed various laws on the rights of accepting, refusing,
or withholding care, and they can pass other ones in the future.  But
under the legal structure that is presently in place, all legal and
constitutional requirements have been met.

The parents are unhappy about the RESULT of the process, but really they
do not like the whole system.  They have indicated that, if they could,
they would continue her life support even if they knew for a fact that
she did not want such life support.  I can understand their emotional
response, and I find no fault with their motives nor with the husband's
motives.  But they do not have the right to impose their own preferences
over hers.  And the law is properly preventing that.

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:275/311)