Congressional Oversight
In a move designed to squash civil liberties, ignore checks and balances, and circumvent the justice system, the United States Congress has decided to rule on the outcome of a court case in Florida.
Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, on the decision of a Florida state court, was removed on Friday. This came after a prolonged court battle between Terri's husband, who wanted to remove the tube, and her parents, who did not.
Sunday morning the Senate ruled unanimously to take this legally decided case out of Florida's hands and give it to a federal court for review. House Democrats however were able to temporarily block a vote until Monday. For once, thank God for the Democrats. Does the Republican party realize that this bill, applicable only to Terri Schiavo's case, spits on an over 200 year old system specifically designed to keep one govermental body from attaining too much power.
Let's look at it from opposing viewpoints. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi says, "Congressional leaders have no business substituting their judgment for that of multiple state courts." An insightful observation. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay argues, "What will it hurt to have a federal judge take a fresh look at all this evidence and apply it against 15 years worth of advances in medical technology?" Well, how about states rights, the right to a fair trial, and personal liberties, such as the right to die in peace. The American people elected a Republican Congress and gained a moral dictatorship. As Congressman DeLay puts it, "The legal issues, I grant you, are complicated, but the moral ones are not ..." No Congressman, the legal issue here is very simple, Florida rules, you follow.
Today I am embarrassed to consider myself at all connected with the Republican party. Their moral ideals have caused them to circumvent justice and dignity for their own agenda, and that is the worst moral perversion.
Source: Congress' Rampage
7 Comments:
I'm going to have to both agree and disagree here. I'm not so sure the federal government had to get involved. In a perfect world I would agree that the federal government should intervene less in states' affairs. On the other hand, though, I have to disagree that we have the right to die. What exactly do you (not to be too personal. I mean to speak more to everyone) mean by personal liberty or human rights? I assume that you believe that these rights transcend human authority. I certainly do. I believe that everyone on this earth has "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Now we either do or we don't. If we don't, then we revert to how society was hundreds of years ago when the strong ruled over the weak and could take from the weak whatever they pleased. Including food, or more specifically a feeding tube. I think we do have the right to live, however, and no one can take that right from us! What is the source of these rights? Well if we read the Declaration of Independence (which is a very concise argument for the state of mankind) is says earlier that we are endowed by our Creator with these rights. If God is too heavy for you all, then believe that it is nature. (though I reject this because if we were to obey that which nature gives us, we would still be sitting cold in a cave somewhere...) In any case, we are given from some greater source rights that transcend human authority. It is that greater source that gives us life, not us. And we can excercise the right to live, but it can only be the source of our life that can take life from us. Since man is not that source, a man cannot take the life of another man, including one's self. Let's be honest, that's what happening to Terri Schiavo. She's being starved to death. Whether she wants that or not, her life must not be taken from her by man.
My blog was speaking specifically to Congress' legal rights and repsonsiblities in upholding a family's rights to make their own choices. If however you want to discuss God, then lets. If you believe in God and an afterlife, which I do, then is it better to remain, for all intents and purposes, lifeless in this world, or to be released from your existence and move on to be with your creator? You also stated that only God can take away life. It is man, not God, that is currently keeping Terri Schiavo alive right now. It is a man made feeding tube, and a man made Congress. To state otherwise is ignorance. If Terri's family truly left her fate up to God, without interference, she would have died seven years ago. So now, is Congress interfering in a a resolution that God has been trying to achieve for the last seven years? It certainly seems so
"In a move designed to squash civil liberties, ignore checks and balances, and circumvent the justice system, the United States Congress has decided to rule on the outcome of a court case in Florida."
Was the move DESIGNED to squash civil liberties, etc? Or is it a consequence? I see a straw man argument here ...
Also, isn't Congress supposed to make laws? The courts interpret them (and "make" law through precedent, of course), but Congress can still make law (that's its function, after all).
I do not see the difference between Terri Schiavo and any other brain damage victim. Are we to proactively kill everyone that requires a feeding tube to survive because they are "lifeless"? I also reject the notion that it is a man who is keeping Terri Schiavo alive. She needs food, just like the rest of us. She just receives it in a different way. We have no right to die.
Speaking directly to your statement that we have no right to die, we do have a right to leave a living will that states our last requests. Many times the document will state that the person wants to be taken off life support, and be allowed to die. While Terri Schiavo did not have a living will, it was proven in multiple state courts that her wishes, as told ter her husband, were to be let go. She has the legal right to die, which the state court upheld. My biggest problem with this whole situation is that Congress did not agree with the state courts ruling, and decided to try and get it changed. It sincerely disappoints me.
Well to be as clear as I can, I am not talking about something explicitly Biblical. I am talking about the moral implications of the Terri Schiavo situation. I think it is reasonable to talk about the morality of this case (the existance of a right to die) side by side witht the legal/constitutional aspects of it. Now about evolution... you're right. Start a new post and we can debate that!
I agree completely with Patrick. I think that the basis of this case is that people have a right to choose their medical care. If they don’t want to have some sort of care, than they should not be forced to have it. And they may have any sort of reasons for their decisions, from religion to preferences. It has been shown that Terri did not want to remain in her current state and so she has now been given her rights. There are a couple things I don’t understand. Why did the republicans, Bush and Jeb, jump into this? I know that this is the main point of this post but it kind of bothers me. I sure hope that when I am in the hospital politicians aren’t jumping into my family issues. Especially since these types of issues come up in every hospital in the country. One final question I have is that republicans have stressed the sanctity of marriage a bit lately, particularly in the gay marriage issue. So why in this case did it suddenly change, now the husband should not have a say but the rights of Terri should be reverted back to her family. It doesn’t seem to make sense to me.
Post a Comment
<< Home