Congress: We don't need no Constitution

[Zep]

The bill is to a specifically NAMED person, which must surely create a legal nightmare.

Imagine this: What if a whole bunch of people changed their names to "Theresa Marie Schiavo" by deed poll or whatever. This bill then applies to them specifically by name. So would this bill mean these people must be fed and watered at someone else's expense for life? If so, how quick before every panhandler in the USA changed their name?

 

[Cleon]

It's not a bill of attainder and it is just congress flexing it's constitutional power to veto the judicial. The fact that it initially involves two parties means nothing. Remember roe vs. wade?

Not the same thing at all. The Roe V. Wade decision applied everywhere, to everyone. This law specifically only deals with this one particular case.

 

[Rob Lister]

Not the same thing at all. The Roe V. Wade decision applied everywhere, to everyone. This law specifically only deals with this one particular case.

That's the part that confuses me. You'd think they'd have made the law a bit broader to cover the tens or hundreds of such cases currently before the courts in various states.

Still, I find the passage of this bill simply amazing, but for a different reason: There is NO PORK ATTACHED! No amendments, no 'additional funding', no nothing. That is a rare bird indeed.

 

[ceo_esq]

Private relief bills specifically targeted to named individuals are neither unusual nor unconstitutional, per se. Congress enacts, and the President signs, many of them each year (probably most often, though certainly not always, with regard to immigration matters).

The Schiavo bill is not a bill of attainder.

Congress has the constitutional power to decide what types of cases the federal courts may hear. Obviously, it doesn't have unlimited ability to decide the substantive laws according to which those cases are adjudicated, but that's not a problem with this bill.

This lawyer's opinion.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's great that our senate is wasting time and money to take care of such important matters as steroids in baseball and a vegetable in Florida.

Didn't you hear? They balanced the budget and eliminated the national debt on Thursday morning. It wasn't in any of the papers or CNN. I guess the liberal media doesn't want to give the republicans any credit.

 

[Ladewig]

President Bush rushed back from his Texas ranch for a chance to sign the measure that Republicans view as an opportunity to strengthen their support among religious conservatives ahead of next year's congressional elections.

Off Topic: Why does the president have to fly to Washington to sign the bill? Can't he sign a fax copy or have the bill overnighted. Given how many people have to travel with the president, it seems a horrible waste of resources.

 

[Cleon]

Re: Re: Congress: We don't need no Constitution

Off Topic: Why does the president have to fly to Washington to sign the bill? Can't he sign a fax copy or have the bill overnighted. Given how many people have to travel with the president, it seems a horrible waste of resources.

Because photo-ops just don't have the same oomph when a fax machine is involved.

 

[crimresearch]

It isn't a bill of attainder..

However, naming one specific person in it does not mean that lawyers in other cases won't try to claim that it sets a precedent for parents to take control of other decisions in their married adult children's lives.

 

[Rob Lister]

It isn't a bill of attainder..

However, naming one specific person in it does not mean that lawyers in other cases won't try to claim that it sets a precedent for parents to take control of other decisions in their married adult children's lives.

I agree. If for no other reason that getting a foot in the door with the equal protection clause.

Still, this issue was specifically addressed in the bill

SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.

Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.

...er...I think.

 

[crimresearch]

Except that Congress isn't supposed to decide what is and isn't precedent in a court of law, are they?...

That phrase is either utterly worthless, or it opens the door to handing more control of the courts over to the legislature.

 

[billydkid]

They've decided to write and pass a bill specific to one person, and one person only. This is highly unconstitutional and is just pandering to the religious right. I'm sure glad I didn't vote Republican in the last elections, I'd feel stupid if I did.

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20050321/D88V1AE80.html?PG=home&SEC=news

President Bush rushed back from his Texas ranch for a chance to sign the measure that Republicans view as an opportunity to strengthen their support among religious conservatives ahead of next year's congressional elections.

Gosh, Thai, you're almost sounding, semi, sorta, libertarian here.

 

[headscratcher4]

If you or someone you love have a living will or a DNR, I would suggest that you send notarized copies ASAP to your member of Congress, your senators and the President of the United States. Hopefully, should the problem arise in your family, they won't than feel compelled to bring the full force of government into your personal and family decisions....

There was a time when people used to scream about Big Government Democrats...I find it odd that the same people who used to argue that was a resaon to elect Republicans are now in power and operating the largest, most intrusive government (outside of a period of declared war) that we've ever seen -- IMO.

We are in a lot of trouble in this country...the alleged socialism of Democrats is quickly being replaced by the Republican Taliban...

 

[Ladyhawk]

Maybe Robin Williams said it best when he commented on concerns over Iraq not having a constitution.

"Why not give them ours? We're not using it".

 

[hammegk]

Maybe Robin Williams said it best when he commented on concerns over Iraq not having a constitution.

"Why not give them ours? We're not using it".

Robin must remember the Warren Court. That's when the Constitution disappeared in favor of the Judiciary.

 

[Brown]

Folks, this is more than unconstitutional. It is an obscene abuse of power by the federal government.

And it all come down to this: abortion.

There are many individuals in the federal government who feel that all human life, as they define it, should be preserved.

These folks see this lady as a great big fetus. This is not hyperbole.

If the courts rule that the federal government can intervene here, then the federal government is just one step away from pushing to outlaw abortion.

Never mind that these decisions of life and death are painful enough as they are. Never mind that the decisions are as personal and as private as can be. Never mind the wishes of the people whose lives are actually affected by the decisions. Never mind that those who seek to intrude have every intention of telling others what to do but have no intention of paying a single penny to carry out their wishes. People in the federal government want to make these decisions for everyone.

Do you have a living will? If so, it will be worthless if these guys get their way. You will no longer be free to determine whether life is worth living. Elected officials, who know nothing about your case and who care not a whit for your wishes, will decide for you.

 

[Ladyhawk]

Folks, this is more than unconstitutional. It is an obscene abuse of power by the federal government.

And it all come down to this: abortion.

There are many individuals in the federal government who feel that all human life, as they define it, should be preserved.

These folks see this lady as a great big fetus. This is not hyperbole.

If the courts rule that the federal government can intervene here, then the federal government is just one step away from pushing to outlaw abortion..

You said it.

I can't help but wonder how people of other countries view this. I've seen commentary from our European friends here and have heard similar from European celebrities, that our tolerance ..in fact, encouragement, of the mention of God in our politicians speeches, etc., is something that would never be condoned in other countries. This latest measure by the Congress has to make America look like nothing short of archaic....and hypocritical.

Over 1500 lives lost in Iraq and Bush still can't come up with an exit strategy.

Guess the only lives worth anything to this Republican administration are those of the unborn and the undead.

 

[RandFan]

Over 1500 lives lost in Iraq and Bush still can't come up with an exit strategy. [/B]

I don't get the relevance of the statement. It seems we are all in agreement that what Congress is doing in this instance is wrong. Why do you feel the need to take such a jab in this thread?

 

[Ladyhawk]

I don't get the relevance of the statement. It seems we are all in agreement that what Congress is doing in this instance is wrong. Why do you feel the need to take such a jab in this thread?

I think it's very relevant, Rand. It goes to showing that all of this fuss over Schiavo is more politically motivated than anything else. If it were truly about the sanctity of life, (as Tom DeLay and Dubya would have us believe), then why not the same sense of urgency for the lives at risk in Iraq? That's all.

 

[hammegk]

... then why not the same sense of urgency for the lives at risk in Iraq?

Good point. Glad your mama chose Life, aren't you?

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

To the Bush’s credit, this has become a win-win situation. If they keep the tube in, it’s Bush coming through on his promise to respect the sanctity of life, even if it’s a human life with the mind of a spleen, and if the courts negate the new law it’s another rallying cry over the tyranny of activist judges. To “energize the base”, it makes perfect political sense for them to try to pass such laws, especially if they are likely to be found unconstitutional. I guess, you just hope their heart is in the right place.

What I don’t get here is what happened to the sanctity of marriage? I have a legal document giving the power to pull my feeding tubes in such situations to no one but my spouse. Why? Because no one in the world knows better what I’d want and what’s best for our children. This is also a right of marriage, and it’s given due to the weighty and vital function a marriage serves in a person’s life. A married person’s life is lived for their spouse and kids--they’ve split from their parents--and giving their family the right to make such decisions is both reasonable and part of respecting its sanctity. So, what am I missing?