kickaha | I'm utterly confused.

I'm utterly confused.

Since when does the federal legislative branch have the right to:

a) break the Constitution wrt to state's rights and intervene in an internal state matter with a federal court;

b) override a state judicial branch single-handedly, before a federal court review, and use executive powers of law enforcement to have their way;

Did I miss a few new Amendments that give Congress total authority?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Well, the Republican majority does have a holy mandate to create a culture of life and protect innocents from murdering liberals, even if it means undermining the entire system of checks and balances and limitation of federal powers... or didn't you get that memo?

Sorry for the sarcastic response, but I don't really have a logical one. I assumed you were talking about the latest media diversion in the form of Terri Schiavo. I could say what I think the GOP's purpose is in getting involved, but then I'd just get bitter and cynical and ranty, and no one wants to see that.

What, you didn't notice that the House Dems were split down the middle on the vote?

This was, for everything I can see, a bipartisan power grab of epic proportions.

Ugh, no, I didn't. I've been trying to avoid it, honestly, because I deeply fear for the legitimacy of our government and legal system already without seeking out anything else to incense me. While I cringe at the notion of being willfully ignorant, my outrage meter has been pretty much maxed out for the last few months and I don't want to risk going postal.

Preach on, sistah.

That's really all that needs be said.

There are only a few ways I can think of for them to even pretend to justify this:

Defining a feeding tube as a non-medical treatment which may not be refused.
Defining refusing vital medical treatment as suicide, for which the patient may be committed and treated involuntarily.
Adding some sort of due process before allowing the exercise of medical power of attorney to refuse vital treatment.
Granting doctors and nurses a freedom-of-conscience power to ignore patients' wishes in some cases. *shudder*

Any of these would of course add to the very long list of powers Congress claims without the states ever having delegated them.

At least there's nowhere higher for this issue to go. If Congress doesn't manage to interfere, that should be it.

*sigh* The actual rationale (from the Chicago Tribune) is even stupider than I could think of.

Senate Republican leaders did not go as far as their House counterparts in ordering Schiavo and her husband to testify. Instead, they issued invitations to appear on March 28, the Monday after Easter.

Those invitations carried with them the protection that all congressional witnesses receive under a law that prevents tampering with or threatening them.

So Congress is now claiming the power to compel life-sustaining medical treatment whenever they feel like it? Sucks to be Christian Scientist....

The Bill.

Thanks, I was confused about which gambit was the latest. This one boils down to "Terri's parents have 30 days to disregard all previous judgments and sue again". They aren't even going through the motion of throwing out a reason that the previous judgments may have been wrong, they're just hoping another judge could be given the same facts yet fail to produce the same decision. Congress is officially promoting jurisdiction shopping.

I wish the power to sanction sitting congressmen who support blatantly unconstitutional laws were not solely in the hands of their fellow congressmen. Just let the supreme court say "whoever voted for this steaming pile is just not qualified for the job" and hit a big gong or something....

You did see the 2000 election, right?

Just shoot me now, please. :/ (But for the love of all that's holy, make it a killing shot, or...)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm utterly confused.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Thank you FDR

Has the bill been published yet?

Re: Has the bill been published yet?

Re: Has the bill been published yet?

Re: Has the bill been published yet?

no subject

no subject