The executive branch doesn't have the authority to anything in cases of law without the judiciary.
You can't arrest somebody without a warrant, which must be obtained through the courts, you cannot formally charge somebody without the court. The executive branch can investigate crimes, but can't do anything about them without the judiciary. I guess in reality the Law Enforcement duties are shared between the Executive and the Judiciary. > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Actually, the executive branch is the enforcement arm of the > government. Hence, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of all the > military forces and is the head of the Departments (State, Agriculture, > Defense, etc.) which enforce the laws as passed by Congress according to > their respective areas. > > The Judicial arm decides whether or not a law has been broken and > the punishment for breaking that law. This includes any law that has been > passed by the Congress, because the ultimate and highest law in the US is > the Constitution, and any laws passed by the Congress, states, counties or > municipalities are subordinate to the Constitution. > > Judges must make decisions based on their interpretation of the law. > Apparently, Florida laws allow the next-of-kin, parent, or legal guardian > to make health decisions for those unable to do so. This happens > frequently - a parent decides what course of action to pursue when his or > her child is ill. > > Terri Schiavo's case is just one of these cases. Terri, were she > able to speak, herself may have decided that she did not want to be fed > through a tube. However, because she is unable to do so, the decision > comes to rest solely on her next-of-kin, Michael Schiavo. > > A judge must rule on the highest existing laws that govern these > situations. The judges in these cases, should they have ruled in the > parent's favor, would have been likely overturned on appeal by a higher > court. This is why every single case went in Michael's favor. > > The Congress should have made a law that said that removing tubes > was illegal, but they didn't. Why didn't they? It would have been > probably overturned by a federal court because it violates the 10th > Amendment, which prohibits Congress from enacting any laws over issues > that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. > > To cut this short, there is really no such thing as an "activist > judge". In order to limit the power of a judge, one must simply create a > law which specifically states a purpose (example: "Homosexual marriage is > prohibited.") and that cannot be superseded by an interpretation of a > higher law. > > - Matt Small ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:5:153072 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=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
