Text 10413, 96 rader
Skriven 2005-03-27 22:39:22 av EARL CROASMUN (1:275/311)
     Kommentar till en text av ED CONNELL
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
 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.

The very basis of separation of powers is that no branch has "ultimate"
authority.  And nothing in Article III gives congress power to regulate
the scope or authority of a state judiciary, except in the instances
listed in section 2.


 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.

The law was not ignored at all.  The district court had a hearing and
made a determination of what to do.  The judge even put aside his own
concerns of the constitutionality of the law, since the alleged rights
violations were so weak that they stood no substantial chance of
success.  Congress mandated jurisdiction and it mandated standing, but
it forgot to mandate the judge to DECIDE the case the way it wanted him
to.  The decision was upheld on appeal to the circuit court, and the
Supreme Court won't touch it.




 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. 

What specific fact was not considered by the district court?  In the
initial action, five claims were asserted.  Each was dealt with.


 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.

Doesn't change the fact.  Wolfson, the court-appointed guardian of Terri
Schiavo's interests, summarized some of this in his report: "The
current, generally accepted applications to terminal illness or
persistent vegetative state define artificial feeding as artificial life
support that may be withheld or withdrawn. In 1989, the Florida
Legislature permitted the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and
hydration under very specific circumstances. In 1999, following
extensive bipartisan efforts, life-prolonging procedures were redefined
as any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including
artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains,
restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. It is noteworthy
that the general principle of artificial nutrition as artificial life
support that may be removed in terminal and even vegetative state
conditions is reflected in nearly all states laws and within the
guidelines of end of life care enunciated by the American Conference of
Catholic Bishops and other religious denominations."


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

Wolfson's report also quotes in part the written opinion of Justice
Scalia in the Cruzan case: "I would have preferred that we announce,
clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this
field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to
prevent, by force if necessary, suicide - including suicide by refusing
to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the
point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the
means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or
"inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to
the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine
people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and
hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing
evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to
preserve her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide,
through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be
honored. It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing
about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less
lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know
no more about "life-and-death" than they do) that they will decide upon
a line less reasonable."

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