The Schiavo case; separation of church-state abuse

Brown

Quote:

What's your point Au. Just because they are religious doesn't mean they are wrong.

What is wrong is the shoving of your religious beliefs down someone elses throat.

That is and always has been the problem and what is wrong with religion.

0 Replies

Re: Brandon

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Brandon, if you can't behave yourself and have a civil discussion on this topic, I suggest you take your flame-thrower somewhere else. Your well-known personal attacks on people who disagree with you is not welcome here.

Alright, although I actually am offended at some of the things said about the attempted murder of this poor woman, I will try to tone it down. However, I receive the same and worse from liberals on this board several times every week.

0 Replies

Brandon wrote

Quote:

This is factually wrong. You are trying to dehumanize her with words, but the truth is that she is alive and healthy, and the only artificial means employed is to feed her. Many people cannot feed themselves.

How many people do you know who are brain dead and must be fed through a tube in their stomach. All they are keeping "alive" is a human shell.

I saw my father-in-law go through this exercise. He could have lived on were they to feed him in that manner. Needless to say we did not allow it to go forward.

PS. My document was signed before undergoing a major cancer operation. As you can see it was never used. However it lies tucked away for use if need be. Don't want any interference from the holier than thou community.

As for congress. It is not an issue that begs their consideration or attention.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon wrote

Quote:
This is factually wrong. You are trying to dehumanize her with words, but the truth is that she is alive and healthy, and the only artificial means employed is to feed her. Many people cannot feed themselves.

How many people do you know who are brain dead and must be fed through a tube in their stomach. All they are keeping "alive" is a human shell.

She is not brain dead. Must your viewpoint depend on falsehoods? Brain dead is a very well defined thing, and she is not at all. As for feeding tubes, all kinds of people in hospitals are on feeding tubes.

au1929 wrote:

As for congress. It is not an issue that begs their consideration or attention.

Explain to me please why it is improper for the people to regulate what is and is not proper in euthanasia.

0 Replies

She's in a persistent vegetative state.

0 Replies

Brandon9000
They are not ruling on euthanasia. The are ruling on a specific incident or case.
If the subject is Euthanasia. How can they allow an individual the right to sanction his own?
This red herring is politically orchestrated to appease the religious right. As well as take some of the pressure off congress. .

0 Replies

There are so many strong opinions on this subject that the only thing to be learned here is to sign a living will in the presence of witnesses if you don't wish to become part of a circus for people with personal agendas.

To me, being kept alive in a 'vegetative state' is anathema. For anyone who truly and selflessly loves me, I would be allowed to die a natural death. No technical assistance would be used to keep me alive or, more accuratly, existing. That is why pneumonia used to be called "The old person's friend."

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon9000
They are not ruling on euthanasia. The are ruling on a specific incident or case.

Congresspeople who feel pity for TS are trying desperately to pass anything at all that may halt her imminent murder. They regard passing a questionable law to save a person's life to be a good trade.

You are right about one thing, though. The most appropriate way to save her would be to pass a bill which outlawed the entire practice of witholding food from a basically healthy person with brain damage, unless that individual has left specific instructions requesting it. The people (through Congress) certainly have a right to decide what types of euthanasia are or are not proper.

0 Replies

Brandon wrote

Quote:

You are right about one thing, though. The most appropriate way to save her would be to pass a bill which outlawed the entire practice of witholding food from a basically healthy person with brain damage, unless that individual has left specific instructions requesting it. The people (through Congress) certainly have a right to decide what types of euthanasia are or are not proper.

Thanks you have just enlightened me "There are different types of Euthanasia" Some are acceptable while others are not. And that congress is now tasked to oversee the court system. and indeed to write cockamamie laws to over ride their decisions. I guess that would make the Supreme Court an unnecessary appendage. When was the constitution rewritten? .

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
You are right about one thing, though. The most appropriate way to save her would be to pass a bill which outlawed the entire practice of witholding food from a basically healthy person with brain damage, unless that individual has left specific instructions requesting it. The people (through Congress) certainly have a right to decide what types of euthanasia are or are not proper.

...And that congress is now tasked to oversee the court system. and indeed to write cockamamie laws to over ride their decisions. I guess that would make the Supreme Court an unnecessary appendage. When was the constitution rewritten? .

I had been under the impression that Congress makes the laws and the courts merely hear law suits under those laws.

0 Replies

Brandon
Is that what the Supreme court does. Rolling Eyes

I feel an ad hominem coming on but restraint will win out.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon
Is that what the Supreme court does. I feel an ad hominem coming on but restraint will win out.

Yes, the primary purpose of the Supreme Court is to hear cases under the law, although they specialize in laws of federal interest. It was established early in the nation's history that they also have the power of judical review, that is, to decide within a case they were hearing that some law relevant to the case contradicited a provision of the Constitution, but they were created, as was the rest of the court system, for the purpose of hearing cases under the law.

Why? Were you under the impression that the courts were the branch of government assigned the role of making new laws? That power is reserved to the legislature.

0 Replies

Brandon
The supreme court reviews {hears] cases from lower courts. As well as determining the constitutionality of decisions made and laws passed. The supreme court was asked to take this case and they refused. I suppose they did not think the case was worthy of review.
In any event it is the supreme courts function to when they deem it proper to rehear cases. It certainly not a congressional function to introduce legislation negating a courts decision when they do not like it. This legislation does not deal with the matters of state but a judical decision. I suppose from now on it will be proper for congress to introduce legislation to over ride a courts decision whenever they disagree.. IMO it is an abuse of power

0 Replies

Brandon wrote:

Quote:

It is not wise to make assumptions about other people's lives.

This is a rather humorous statement coming from someone that tells us they know more than the Drs that are treating Terry Schiavo.

0 Replies

Quote:

I suppose from now on it will be proper for congress to introduce legislation to over ride a courts decision whenever they disagree.. IMO it is an abuse of power

The legislature is free to write any law they want. The only problem is those laws have to fit within the constitution which gives the courts the final judgement over the law. The legislature can write laws all day to overturn court decisions but if the laws by overturning the decisions violate the constitution then they will also be overturned. The public will soon tire of a legislature continually violating the constitution and vote them out.

The courts threw out the last law passed to force the feeding tube to remain in. All subsequent laws are subject to that precedent. Each time they write a new law and it is overturned it makes it more likely for any subsequent legislation on the subject to be overturned. What this means is that the legislature by passing such laws would make it harder and harder for them to pass any laws concerning the subject that wouldn't violate the court rulings.

0 Replies

And yet there was no outrage about this:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3087387

0 Replies

Only the living has the gall to fight to keep somebody that's brain dead alive by forced feeding.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon
The supreme court reviews {hears] cases from lower courts. As well as determining the constitutionality of decisions made and laws passed. The supreme court was asked to take this case and they refused. I suppose they did not think the case was worthy of review.
In any event it is the supreme courts function to when they deem it proper to rehear cases. It certainly not a congressional function to introduce legislation negating a courts decision when they do not like it. This legislation does not deal with the matters of state but a judical decision. I suppose from now on it will be proper for congress to introduce legislation to over ride a courts decision whenever they disagree.. IMO it is an abuse of power

A court can only rule on existing law. Courts are constrained from making law. If, as a result of a ruling in a case, Congress decides to change the underlying law that the courts ruled on, that is proper and the exact role the Constitution grants the legislature. If Congress made a law that stated that the court decision was null and void, that would be a violation of separation of powers, but for the courts to change the underlying laws is proper and common.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Brandon wrote:

Quote:
It is not wise to make assumptions about other people's lives.
This is a rather humorous statement coming from someone that tells us they know more than the Drs that are treating Terry Schiavo.

1. I said assumptions not decisions. You made two false assumptions about my life, specifically my age and my personal experiences with death:

parados wrote:

You obviously are young and know nothing of death. Try spending some time on a hospice ward before you accuse someone of having 'no empathy'.

Brandon9000 wrote:
My age is 51 and I just spent 3 months with my mother as she died of cancer. I was in the hospital about 7 hours a day, every day of the week. About the same thing happened when my father died of cancer 13 years ago. It is not wise to make assumptions about other people's lives.

You were in fact incorrect in your guesses. It is not wise to make assumptions about the details of other peoples' lives when you are not familiar with them.

2. In fact, I have never said that I know more about medicine than the doctors treating TS. I do claim, however, to be able to make my own ethical decisions.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
I suppose from now on it will be proper for congress to introduce legislation to over ride a courts decision whenever they disagree.. IMO it is an abuse of power
The legislature is free to write any law they want. The only problem is those laws have to fit within the constitution which gives the courts the final judgement over the law. The legislature can write laws all day to overturn court decisions but if the laws by overturning the decisions violate the constitution then they will also be overturned. The public will soon tire of a legislature continually violating the constitution and vote them out.

If some of the laws which have been introduced in this case violate separation of powers, it is probably simply that some of the people involved would gladly pass a questionable law to save TS's life.

However, regarding the fundamentals of this situation, it is no violation of separation of powers or anything else for the legislature to regulate euthanasia, which is the sort of law that would be most appropriate here. I would like to see a court rule that any law regulating euthanasia is automatically unconstitutional, and then back it up with something that the Constution actually says.

0 Replies

The Schiavo case; separation of church-state abuse

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know