RIGHTS AND SCHIAVO [Mark R. Levin] http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp The right to live, or more specifically, the right not to be killed, is a fundamental right. And it's a right recognized in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. So ingrained in our society is the notion of life, that the 8th Amendment prohibits "cruel and usual punishment" (even short of death) and the 14th Amendment prohibits states from depriving any person of life without due process of law. This has nothing to do with federalism, unless you ignore the 8th and 14th Amendments. (Unlike the Left, that contorts the 14th Amendment, I'm recognizing its literal meaning.)
What really offends the Left is Congress asserting its constitutional power over a court, and not in service to the liberal agenda. Article III specifically empowers Congress to determine the jurisdiction of the federal courts, which is all it did today. It authorized a federal court to determine whether Terri Schiavo's due process rights and the right not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment were properly protected by a state court. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decided on its own that abortion was a federal question, not to be left to the states, without any constitutional basis whatsoever. It preempted every state court and legislature (and Congress, for that matter). And the Left celebrates this decision. As for why Congress is acting here, as opposed to any other case with overlapping issues, I suppose that question could be asked whenever Congress acts. The Schiavo case has risen to national attention. So, Congress is responding. That's how representative government works. The week after the Titanic sank, Congress held its first hearings to change U.S. maritime laws. We must not allow the Left to define the terms of this debate. It is willing to make almost any argument to protect the supremacy of the courts. And even though Congress here is instructing the federal courts to review the case, the Left objects to any congressional exercise of constitutional authority over the judiciary. As Rep. Jim Moran (Dem, VA) said yesterday, "The judiciary has spoken." On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:29:37 -0600, Gruss Gott wrote: > False! The supposed defenders of state's right decided they didn't > like the ruling of a state supreme court so they created legislation > to allow the matter to be reviewed by another set of courts, in this > case federal. > > And yes, this is Bush's fault. He signed the bill. Let's be clear: > this is nothing more than congress and the President overturning the > ruling of state courts because it doesn't like the verdict. > > In Mr. Bush's first term the republicans gave up their "defender of > fiscal sanity" badge. This tiime around it looks like they're giving > up their "defender of state's rights" pin. Not only that, but these > laws will enormously complicate future rulings because now every > ruling in a state court will now be open for re-review by federal > courts. Great work Republicans. > > So now the only thing the Republican party stands for is some type of > no-abortions/keep-guns/kill-prisioners thing. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:151181 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
