Text 10364, 91 rader
Skriven 2005-03-27 14:42:11 av Ed Connell (1:379/1.6)
  Kommentar till text 10355 av EARL CROASMUN (1:275/311)
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
Hey, EARL.

 EC>> That is not what the act did, and had it TRIED to do that it would
 EC>> have 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.

 EC> -> So what is unconstitutional about this.

 EC> But it is more clear that the bill
 EC> violates the separation of powers among the federal branches as well as
 EC> being a federal intrusion upon the state government jurisdiction.

I believe the constitution give ultimate authority to the legislative 
branch - not the judiciary.  The legistlative branch, the representatives of 
the people, are authorized to regulate the scope of the judiciary.

 EC> The next time Congress tries to overrule a court
 EC> decision or a state law that it doesn't like, by passing a special law,
 EC> the fight will come back.

That is not what happened.  This is shown by the way you keep saying they 
did thus and so, but technically avoided doing that very thing by artful 
language or something.

 EC>> From 1998 to 2005, the parents brought many legal actions.  Over
 EC> 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
 EC>> any showing by the advocates of the congressional act that any rights
 EC>> violation had been ignored or that the federal courts were unable
 EC>> to already deal with violations of constitutional rights.

 EC> -> So what?

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

The law was ignored by the thumb-the-nose courts, but that doesn't mean that 
it was meaningless.

 EC>> Nothing has been done in an unconstitutional manner

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

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

They refused to consider the facts.  Why is killing a murderer more of a 
constitutional matter than killing an innocent woman?

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

 EC> There is a clear distinction - relevant for
 EC> some purposes but irrelevant for other purposes - between actively
 EC> causing death and passively allowing it to happen.

She would not die if they were not cutting off her food and water.

 EC> Some would also draw a distinction between food and water on one hand
 EC> and medical care on the other.  Florida law does not seem to make that
 EC> distinction. Food, heart surgery, kidney transplants, and artificial
 EC> respiration all are considered "life support."

Sheesh.

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

 EC> -> It is?  Who made this law?

 EC> In this case the state of Florida, via its constitution, legislature,
 EC> state supreme court and lesser courts.

Ah, the SCOFLA, again.  These are the same guys who tried to help Al Gore 
steal the presidency.

 EC> husband's motives.  But they do not have the right to impose their own
 EC> preferences over hers.  And the law is properly preventing that.

It would be appropriate for the federal government to ascertain that this is 
what is taking place. 

--- Fidolook Lite FTN stub 
 * Origin: Procrastinate NOW, don't put it off for tomorro (1:379/1.6)