Text 10422, 105 rader
Skriven 2005-03-28 00:48:45 av Ed Connell (1:379/1.6)
  Kommentar till text 10413 av EARL CROASMUN (1:275/311)
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
Hey, EARL.

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

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

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


Amendment XIV

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the 
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State 
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall 
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor 
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without 
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal 
protection of the laws.
...

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the 
provisions of this article.



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

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

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

You criticize them for not doing the thing that you would like to criticize 
them for?

The court did not consider the evidence.  It just rubber stamped the Florida 
Judge's decision.

 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."

 EC> -> Sheesh.

 EC> Doesn't change the fact.

Fact?  The fact is that this woman was sentenced to death.  Does anyone 
care?

 EC> Wolfson, the court-appointed guardian of Terri Schiavo's interests,
 EC> summarized some of this in his report: "The current, generally accepted
 EC> applications to terminal illness or persistent vegetative state define
 EC> artificial feeding as artificial life support that may be withheld or
 EC> withdrawn. In 1989, the Florida Legislature permitted the withdrawal of
 EC> artificial nutrition and hydration under very specific circumstances.
 EC> In 1999, following extensive bipartisan efforts, life-prolonging
 EC> procedures were redefined as any medical procedure, treatment, or
 EC> intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration,
 EC> which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. It
 EC> is noteworthy that the general principle of artificial nutrition as
 EC> artificial life support that may be removed in terminal and even
 EC> vegetative state conditions is reflected in nearly all states laws and
 EC> within the guidelines of end of life care enunciated by the American
 EC> Conference of Catholic Bishops and other religious denominations."
 EC> -> It would be appropriate for the federal government to ascertain that
 EC> -> this is what is taking place.

 EC> Wolfson's report also quotes in part the written opinion of Justice
 EC> Scalia in the Cruzan case: "I would have preferred that we announce,
 EC> clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this
 EC> field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to
 EC> prevent, by force if necessary, suicide - including suicide by refusing
 EC> to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the
 EC> point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the
 EC> means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or
 EC> "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to
 EC> the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine
 EC> people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and
 EC> hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing
 EC> evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken
 EC> to preserve her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide,

What clear and convincing evidence?


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