dyslexia wrote:ok for all you lawyers out there, here is my understanding of the current situation, congress is about to pass a bill specifically ordering the fed courts to accept jurisdiction if/when a petition for review is submitted to the court specifically by the parents of terri schiavo to which the court is ordered to accept the petition which in effect means that the court must accept defined petition-open the proceedings and then reject such petition on the grounds of consitutiional violation of separation of powers between the judicial branch and legislative branch, correct or not?
See U.S. Constitution:
Quote: Article I
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to . . . .
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . .
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States. . . .
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. . . . .
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
See also 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Quote:Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
See also:
CRUZAN v. DIRECTOR, MDH, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)
Quote:It cannot be disputed that the Due Process Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution] protects an interest in life as well as an interest in refusing life-sustaining medical treatment.
Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases arising under the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States. Congress has authority to make laws to enforce the Constitution. Congress has authority to make laws to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits states from taking a person's life without due process of law. When Congress enacted a law granting standing to Terri's parents to bring a case in federal court concerning Terri's constitutionally-protected right to life, Congress was acting within its power.
There are two forms of due process: procedural and substantive.
An existing person's right to life is a substantive, fundamental right. The inquiry whether a substantive, fundamental right has been violated goes far beyond the question of whether the procedures used were fair.
The right to substantive due process forbids the government to infringe certain “fundamental” liberty interests at all,
no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301–02, 113 S. Ct. 1439, 1447, 123 L. Ed. 2d 1, 16 (1993); accord Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 722, 117 S. Ct. 2258, 2268, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772, 788 (1997);
The State may not deprive any individual of the substantive, fundamental right to life unless doing so serves a compelling state interest. Unlike criminal defendants who have been convicted of heinous crimes beyond a reasonable doubt and are sentenced to death, the State has NO COMPELLING INTEREST in ordering Terri's death.
There is NO evidence that Terry gave her informed consent to the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration. In the absence of the clearest possible proof that Terri would want life-sustaining food and water withdrawn, the state should not be ordering her death.
Michael Schiavo, acting under the color of state law via a state-issued court order, has ordered his wife's death. However, Terri's parents vehemently disagree that Terri would want food and water withheld. In other words, Terri has a protected right to life. If there are any doubts concerning Terri's wishes concerning the withdrawal of food and water (nutrition and hydration), I believe the federal constitution requires that Terri's life be preserved by maintaining her access to food and water.
Terri's parents ought to have access to a federal court to hear Terri's case concerning her "right to life" as protected by the federal constitution.
