Now that the unthinkable, yet inevitable has happened, I must make yet another attempt to suggest a few items regarding the absurdity of "the system".
Yes, I am referring to the death of Terri Schiavo.
As I stated before, I think that the correct legal choice was made, given the circumstances. I did not say that I agreed with the circumstances or the decision.
Recently, as this case has unfolded, more and more of the dubious circumstances have come to the forefront. Why none of this information made it into the mainstream is beyond me. (Perhaps there is a media-controlled conspiracy here.) Why none of this made it to the court decision, let alone a criminal investigation is beyond me. And when one hears the numerous conflicts of interest amongst those siding with Michael Schiavo, it is even more of a travesty that this happened. In my estimation, the Schindler's will have an almost air-tight unlawful death case to file. And that may encompass family, friends, health workers, attorneys, and even the "experts" who weighed in. It should definitely include the judges.
The unfortunate part is that, again, the law allowed for the claim made by Terri's husband after his establishment as her guardian to reign supreme. That law must be changed, especially in the face of the conflicts of interest that have surfaced. But to me, regardless of your side, the court did decide and 'We the People' allowed that to be the final decision, or at least the one that attorneys are forced to request a court to hear evidence on and overturn. Again, a woman lost her life because of it.
Politics and morality have been shattered in this case. The alignment of very different political figures "for" or "against" are testimony to that. Again, it is a failed system that performed (again in my opinion properly, albiet likely not correctly) and led to all of this. Nonsense. Tragic and senseless. And it must be changed.
Government bodies everywhere will champion debate on this issue. Special interests will chime in to advance specific agendas. Some will agree and some will disagree. But the debate has just begun. Ultimately, there will be a call for more laws and more government intervention. Reverend Jesse Jackson has already mentioned that this case calls for the resumption of discussion on the need for universal healthcare. He is not the only one who has and will advance an agenda.
The law and the courts did what was "right" in defiance of much more information and investigation. And the grandstanding and posturing have just begun.
Again, is this what we, as a Nation, wish to happen to our rights and freedoms? No matter what position you take on this issue, the debate has begun. And the debate may lead to a loss of rights for everyone.
And a woman died. Have we forgotten?
Rest in Peace, Terri Schiavo.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Personal freedom & individual rights
I really don't want to discuss the Terri Schiavo matter. To me, she deserves to die privately and with whatever dignity she can, given the circumstances. However, I must editorialize a bit because of the issues it has led to; namely the social and political consequences that it has created.
First, I start by saying that this could all be "solved" if her husband (if you can actually call him that) would be a man and do the right thing. I do not wish to create an argument regarding my position, but given the questionable circumstances surrounding this situation, his apparent resumption of life without his "wife" and creation of a new "family", and the Schindler's willingness to take care of their daughter, Michael Schiavo should just grant them custody and move on. It would be the decent thing to do.
As a society, however, we must not view this from only a moral point-of-view. Each individual can see this in the light of his or her own morality and likely justify the feelings they hold. The larger issue is how this has been handled by "the system."
Given the the laws of the State of Florida as I have come to understand them, this case has been decided correctly. Regrettably, Terri does not have a living will or any other form of document to outline her wishes. While many call her husband's claim hearsay, what he claims is acceptable and has been accepted by the courts. It may be dubious, given that it took seven years for him to mention it; but, in the absence of a living will and an individual able to communicate, this is what the law provides for.
As the case has unfolded, too many people have gotten involved, perhaps only to advance their own agendas. It has become a federal issue and Congress even passed a special law to allow this to go through the federal courts one last time. People and activists on both sides of the political spectrum (and of life) seem to have an opinion. The debate can and will rage for quite sometime, likely forever.
A much larger problem is developing, though. It is basically the fact that federalism as our Founders intended it is gone. Also, "government" in and of itself seems to be the caretaker of one's liberty. The judiciary in particular has decided an individual's rights in this instance and they have decided that she should be "allowed" to die.
Most of my dispute is with the courts. Yet again, the court system has been granted the status of final arbiter of a case; in this case, an innocent and handicapped woman's life. How far has this country come? Three separate but equal branches of government no longer exist. Nor do states' rights mean anything anymore. The only reason this didn't remain a federal issue is because, regardless of the actions of Congress (which I cannot say I necessarily agree with), the federal courts towards the "end" really wouldn't touch this issue. [Many judicial analysts have claimed this decision was made "so as to not set a precedent."] The federal judiciary has again decided to pick and choose want it wants to pontificate and ultimately legislate on, the will of an elected body be damned. And a woman will lose her life because of all of this.
As I said before, I think that by and large, the "correct" legal decision has likely been made. It has been and should have been a state issue and likely will lead to many states reassessing the laws that they have in place for cases such as this. While like many have said, I think we should err on the side of life, I also don't think that, in a scenario such as this, life should be decided by a court system. The rights of everyone are being eroded in this case. That will be brought to bear by the ramifications it will have in the future. The unfortunate part is that, again the government and especially the judiciary, is dictating our rights. Again, a woman will die because of that.
I wish no ill will to anyone involved. I hope that the precedent that is set is not a legal or political one, but rather a personal one that encourages all Americans to take control of their lives, and perhaps even their deaths. We need to see the runaway stupidity of this whole mess. That without a written document, a life is in the balance and many others will be affected by that, if not ruined. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...that is guaranteed in the Constitution. Erosion of personal freedom and individual rights is what the system has evolved that guarantee in to. And 'We the People' have allowed it to happen. From the many lessons to be learned here, make the most important be to demand responsibility, from your government (all branches and all officials, elected or not) and from yourself.
God speed Terri Schiavo.
First, I start by saying that this could all be "solved" if her husband (if you can actually call him that) would be a man and do the right thing. I do not wish to create an argument regarding my position, but given the questionable circumstances surrounding this situation, his apparent resumption of life without his "wife" and creation of a new "family", and the Schindler's willingness to take care of their daughter, Michael Schiavo should just grant them custody and move on. It would be the decent thing to do.
As a society, however, we must not view this from only a moral point-of-view. Each individual can see this in the light of his or her own morality and likely justify the feelings they hold. The larger issue is how this has been handled by "the system."
Given the the laws of the State of Florida as I have come to understand them, this case has been decided correctly. Regrettably, Terri does not have a living will or any other form of document to outline her wishes. While many call her husband's claim hearsay, what he claims is acceptable and has been accepted by the courts. It may be dubious, given that it took seven years for him to mention it; but, in the absence of a living will and an individual able to communicate, this is what the law provides for.
As the case has unfolded, too many people have gotten involved, perhaps only to advance their own agendas. It has become a federal issue and Congress even passed a special law to allow this to go through the federal courts one last time. People and activists on both sides of the political spectrum (and of life) seem to have an opinion. The debate can and will rage for quite sometime, likely forever.
A much larger problem is developing, though. It is basically the fact that federalism as our Founders intended it is gone. Also, "government" in and of itself seems to be the caretaker of one's liberty. The judiciary in particular has decided an individual's rights in this instance and they have decided that she should be "allowed" to die.
Most of my dispute is with the courts. Yet again, the court system has been granted the status of final arbiter of a case; in this case, an innocent and handicapped woman's life. How far has this country come? Three separate but equal branches of government no longer exist. Nor do states' rights mean anything anymore. The only reason this didn't remain a federal issue is because, regardless of the actions of Congress (which I cannot say I necessarily agree with), the federal courts towards the "end" really wouldn't touch this issue. [Many judicial analysts have claimed this decision was made "so as to not set a precedent."] The federal judiciary has again decided to pick and choose want it wants to pontificate and ultimately legislate on, the will of an elected body be damned. And a woman will lose her life because of all of this.
As I said before, I think that by and large, the "correct" legal decision has likely been made. It has been and should have been a state issue and likely will lead to many states reassessing the laws that they have in place for cases such as this. While like many have said, I think we should err on the side of life, I also don't think that, in a scenario such as this, life should be decided by a court system. The rights of everyone are being eroded in this case. That will be brought to bear by the ramifications it will have in the future. The unfortunate part is that, again the government and especially the judiciary, is dictating our rights. Again, a woman will die because of that.
I wish no ill will to anyone involved. I hope that the precedent that is set is not a legal or political one, but rather a personal one that encourages all Americans to take control of their lives, and perhaps even their deaths. We need to see the runaway stupidity of this whole mess. That without a written document, a life is in the balance and many others will be affected by that, if not ruined. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...that is guaranteed in the Constitution. Erosion of personal freedom and individual rights is what the system has evolved that guarantee in to. And 'We the People' have allowed it to happen. From the many lessons to be learned here, make the most important be to demand responsibility, from your government (all branches and all officials, elected or not) and from yourself.
God speed Terri Schiavo.
Sunday, March 06, 2005
The Danger of the Black Robes
I can preach on and on about this subject, but there are so many good columns on the web regarding it at present that I likely cannot be too enlightening. Also, there are several excellent books out right now. Men in Black by Mark Levin appears to be one of the best, although I have yet to read it.
Suffice it to say, however, I have a point (or two) to make.
The first point is that there are those in this country (and apparently Justice Kennedy is among them) that view the Constitution as a "living document". It is not. I am baffled at how anyone with any intellectual dignity tries to make another believe that. How many laws do we have in the United States? My answer is too many, but that is not the point. The legislative process has run amuck, BUT the acid test has always been the constitutionality of any law. A new law is forced to measure up against the Constitution...the standard. You cannot change that standard. It is the original idea, the foundation. I can admit that other ideas (or laws) could be fashioned from it, and perhaps there is merit to a "new interpretation" based on a new law. That, however, does not provide for changing the basic meaning of the Constitution. Truthfully, we have too many laws in my estimation. And we cannot seem to enforce any of them. A catastrophe like a school shooting always seems to lead to the need for new laws and never the enforcement of the good, basic laws we have. But when we begin reaching for the "living" interpretation of the Constitution so as to make it "hip" to today's thinking, we are on the wrong path.
Even worse, however, is the use of foreign law and precedent, in judgments by the Supreme Court of the United States. Where in the Constitution does it say that we should check out what the neighbors think (and how they act) when we decide how we should conduct ourselves? This my conservative friends (and you liberals, too) is flat out wrong and dangerous. We do not live in the European Union. The United Nations is not our government. It is way past time that ALL Americans begin to think this over. Our Constitution was smartly crafted by many scholarly men who realized that sovereignty was important and that the rule of law was essential in maintaining order. That order leads to prosperity and "the pursuit of happiness" that we are all guaranteed. That is (I'm sure) one reason that they made the process of amending the Constitution so difficult.
Now, we have the Black Robes amending it from the bench. This is a pivotal time in history my friends. Imposition of law by as few as five non-elected, non-replaceable individuals is patently dangerous to our freedoms. Let not you leftists think that they could not reinterpret your favorite views. Does McCain-Feingold (or the yet to be released McCain-Feingold II) ring any bells? It should.
We are at a point in American history where the tax burden on individuals is oppressive and getting worse. (Not just income or payroll taxes, do your homework. See how much tax is built into the purchase price of your favorite items...even food items that are supposedly not taxed.) We have a total lack of caring regarding the flood of illegal aliens into our country. Hell, many of us want to give them rights, not to mention various freebies that the American taxpayer is forced to fund. And now we have the Supreme Court basically deciding whatever the hell it wants regarding pretty much anything it decides to review. (Don't miss the "decides to review" point. Remember, the Black Robes can turn cases and challenges away, so they really are in a position to pick and choose what they want to impose on us.) Is that the country that the Founding Fathers envisioned? Is that the country that you as an American wish this nation become? Do we want a "living" document as the foundation of our laws? Do we really want foreign interpretation of anything to be of influence here? I think not.
The time is now to demand otherwise. Term-limits on the Supreme Court are essential. Now that is an amendment worth passing. Until then, demand that your legislators demand study and interpretation of our laws be used in decisions, not the political climate of near-socialist Europe. Push for impeachment of judges and tell Congress that the Senate needs to stop the filibuster charade regarding judicial nominees where a minority of sore-losers are adding further disarray to a volatile situation. If nothing else, do it for the children because their futures may really depend on it.
Suffice it to say, however, I have a point (or two) to make.
The first point is that there are those in this country (and apparently Justice Kennedy is among them) that view the Constitution as a "living document". It is not. I am baffled at how anyone with any intellectual dignity tries to make another believe that. How many laws do we have in the United States? My answer is too many, but that is not the point. The legislative process has run amuck, BUT the acid test has always been the constitutionality of any law. A new law is forced to measure up against the Constitution...the standard. You cannot change that standard. It is the original idea, the foundation. I can admit that other ideas (or laws) could be fashioned from it, and perhaps there is merit to a "new interpretation" based on a new law. That, however, does not provide for changing the basic meaning of the Constitution. Truthfully, we have too many laws in my estimation. And we cannot seem to enforce any of them. A catastrophe like a school shooting always seems to lead to the need for new laws and never the enforcement of the good, basic laws we have. But when we begin reaching for the "living" interpretation of the Constitution so as to make it "hip" to today's thinking, we are on the wrong path.
Even worse, however, is the use of foreign law and precedent, in judgments by the Supreme Court of the United States. Where in the Constitution does it say that we should check out what the neighbors think (and how they act) when we decide how we should conduct ourselves? This my conservative friends (and you liberals, too) is flat out wrong and dangerous. We do not live in the European Union. The United Nations is not our government. It is way past time that ALL Americans begin to think this over. Our Constitution was smartly crafted by many scholarly men who realized that sovereignty was important and that the rule of law was essential in maintaining order. That order leads to prosperity and "the pursuit of happiness" that we are all guaranteed. That is (I'm sure) one reason that they made the process of amending the Constitution so difficult.
Now, we have the Black Robes amending it from the bench. This is a pivotal time in history my friends. Imposition of law by as few as five non-elected, non-replaceable individuals is patently dangerous to our freedoms. Let not you leftists think that they could not reinterpret your favorite views. Does McCain-Feingold (or the yet to be released McCain-Feingold II) ring any bells? It should.
We are at a point in American history where the tax burden on individuals is oppressive and getting worse. (Not just income or payroll taxes, do your homework. See how much tax is built into the purchase price of your favorite items...even food items that are supposedly not taxed.) We have a total lack of caring regarding the flood of illegal aliens into our country. Hell, many of us want to give them rights, not to mention various freebies that the American taxpayer is forced to fund. And now we have the Supreme Court basically deciding whatever the hell it wants regarding pretty much anything it decides to review. (Don't miss the "decides to review" point. Remember, the Black Robes can turn cases and challenges away, so they really are in a position to pick and choose what they want to impose on us.) Is that the country that the Founding Fathers envisioned? Is that the country that you as an American wish this nation become? Do we want a "living" document as the foundation of our laws? Do we really want foreign interpretation of anything to be of influence here? I think not.
The time is now to demand otherwise. Term-limits on the Supreme Court are essential. Now that is an amendment worth passing. Until then, demand that your legislators demand study and interpretation of our laws be used in decisions, not the political climate of near-socialist Europe. Push for impeachment of judges and tell Congress that the Senate needs to stop the filibuster charade regarding judicial nominees where a minority of sore-losers are adding further disarray to a volatile situation. If nothing else, do it for the children because their futures may really depend on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
