Tom DeLay...Shameless political opportunist

[ReillyT]

Give them time.

That is what I fear.

 

[dilloduck]

Is there such a thing as an political oppotunist that feels shame ?-----I thought they could all rationalize it away.

 

[Avatar4321]

We also shouldn't forget that the federal "Terri's Law" is, in essence, a Bill of Attainder and pertaining to a single individual. It is, therefore, unconstitutional.

Once again, Bill of Attainders only occur in reference to criminal law. So unless you are claiming Terri was put to death for some crime its irrelevant.

 

[Avatar4321]

come on now - quit tap dancing around the issue.

They attempted to override the law and they had no right and no legitimate basis for doing so.

What the heck are you talking about. It specifically is the legislatures job to write law. If they dont like court rulings they have every right to write a law to change it.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

What the heck are you talking about. It specifically is the legislatures job to write law. If they dont like court rulings they have every right to write a law to change it.

all that does is further perpetuate the circle of rewriting laws until they get the ruling they want. Isn't that what people were bitching about in reverse?

 

[Merlin1047]

What the heck are you talking about. It specifically is the legislatures job to write law. If they dont like court rulings they have every right to write a law to change it.

Circular reasoning.

It is NOT the job of the federal government to override a state law on behalf of only ONE specific person and I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that Congress has a right to write a law to overturn a specific verdict.

Frankly I'm cannot fathom why you are so determined to rationalize this issue.

 

[dilloduck]

Circular reasoning.

It is NOT the job of the federal government to override a state law on behalf of only ONE specific person and I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that Congress has a right to write a law to overturn a specific verdict.

Frankly I'm cannot fathom why you are so determined to rationalize this issue.

Long standing state laws and practices have been deemed unconstitutional by
the Supreme Court. Don't you include them in our " government ?

 

[Merlin1047]

Long standing state laws and practices have been deemed unconstitutional by
the Supreme Court. Don't you include them in our " government ?

Dillo that statement is not relevant to the point. What you describe is simply the judiciary performing their legitimate function. It is the charter of the SCOTUS to do exactly that.

It is not the charter of the legislative branch to determine if a particular ruling on a specific case is appropriate or not. You may note that no one challenged the Florida law on a Constitutional basis. That's probably because it was a foregone conclusion that the law is well within the bounds of the Constitution.

Had Congress passed a federal law mandating certain requirements for ALL cases such as Schiavo's I might not agree with their action, but I could not accuse them of attempting to undermine the Constitution. But as it was they attempted to bully the courts into producing a ruling which Congress wanted to mandate.

Perhaps if you substitute "legislative branch" where it says "federal government" in my previous statement you are addressing, it will be a bit clearer.

 

[Avatar4321]

Circular reasoning.

It is NOT the job of the federal government to override a state law on behalf of only ONE specific person and I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that Congress has a right to write a law to overturn a specific verdict.

Frankly I'm cannot fathom why you are so determined to rationalize this issue.

Its the responsibility of Congress to uphold the the Constitution which protects life. The fourteenth amendment was designed to give the federal government that power when the states would or could not.

And contrary to what you claim this isnt a federal law overriding state law issue. The Florida legislature passed a law and the courts flipped off State law as well. This is not a federal v state issue because both were for protecting Terri's life. This is a legislative v. Judicial controversy. This is the representatives of the people v those who were appointed.

And I will continue to fight for this issue because once we have a bunch of unelected people saying that the government can kill innocent citizens we have alot of frickin problems. I can't fathom why you think that the legislature doesn't have the power to check the juducial branch.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Its the responsibility of Congress to uphold the the Constitution which protects life. The fourteenth amendment was designed to give the federal government that power when the states would or could not.

The 14th was written to block southern states from having a seperate set of laws concerning blacks. It was never intended to be a substitute for circumventing state court decisions they didn't agree with.

And contrary to what you claim this isnt a federal law overriding state law issue. The Florida legislature passed a law and the courts flipped off State law as well.

It was ruled unconstitutional, the courts didn't 'flip off' the state legislature. If the legislature wanted to override that decision all they had to do was make a new state constitution amendment.

This is not a federal v state issue because both were for protecting Terri's life. This is a legislative v. Judicial controversy. This is the representatives of the people v those who were appointed.

It is NOT the job of the legislature to rewrite laws at a whim because the don't agree with a lawful decision by the courts.

And I will continue to fight for this issue because once we have a bunch of unelected people saying that the government can kill innocent citizens we have alot of frickin problems. I can't fathom why you think that the legislature doesn't have the power to check the juducial branch.

They always had that power, this was an example of the legislature trying to overturn a lawful decision by the courts.

 

[musicman]

The 14th was written to block southern states from having a seperate set of laws concerning blacks. It was never intended to be a substitute for circumventing state court decisions they didn't agree with.

That's strange, Smarter. I don't recall reading "southern states shall make no law concerning blacks" ANYWHERE in the XIVth Amendment. The amendments's reason for being is to ensure that, when state law comes into conflict with the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights prevails.

Therefore, when state court decisions "don't agree with " the United States Constitution, THEY SHOULD BE CIRCUMVENTED - HENCE - THE AMENDMENT.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

That's strange, Smarter. I don't recall reading "southern states shall make no law concerning blacks" ANYWHERE in the XIVth Amendment. The amendments's reason for being is to ensure that, when state law comes into conflict with the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights prevails.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/jul28.html
On July 28, 1868, former slaves became citizens when the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified. Known as the "Reconstruction Amendment," it forbids any state to deny to any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws." With its broadly phrased language, the Fourteenth Amendment continues to provide a basis for civil rights claims in the United States.

Therefore, when state court decisions "don't agree with " the United States Constitution, THEY SHOULD BE CIRCUMVENTED - HENCE - THE AMENDMENT.

key words 'dont agree with' means any decision we don't like. You're allowing the feds to overrule a state courts decisions which is a power that the feds are NOT supposed to have.

 

[musicman]

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/jul28.html
On July 28, 1868, former slaves became citizens when the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified. Known as the "Reconstruction Amendment," it forbids any state to deny to any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws." With its broadly phrased language, the Fourteenth Amendment continues to provide a basis for civil rights claims in the United States.

And that's wonderful. Former slaves, then, were the first beneficiaries of the XIVth Amendment. But that doesn't mean former slaves were the sole reason for the creation of the amendment. It was written to provide federal remedy for state abuse of power.

key words 'dont agree with' means any decision we don't like. You're allowing the feds to overrule a state courts decisions which is a power that the feds are NOT supposed to have.

The feds did no such thing in the Schaivo case. Congress set jurisdiction in the matter, as is perfectly within its constitutional power. Its interest was due process of law under the Vth and XIVth, not circumventing the will of the people of Florida. If this were some sort of power grab - some arbitrary imposition of George Bush's will - he could have simply federalized the Florida National Guard and taken over the hospice. Obviously, that wasn't the purpose.

 

[OCA]

What the heck are you talking about. It specifically is the legislatures job to write law. If they dont like court rulings they have every right to write a law to change it.

Avatar you realize you are advocating a form of legislative fascism, right?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

And that's wonderful. Former slaves, then, were the first beneficiaries of the XIVth Amendment. But that doesn't mean former slaves were the sole reason for the creation of the amendment. It was written to provide federal remedy for state abuse of power.

Thats not how this amendment is written and you know this. It most certainly doesnt apply for the schiavo case because due process and rule of law was applied throughout the entire process.

The feds did no such thing in the Schaivo case. Congress set jurisdiction in the matter, as is perfectly within its constitutional power. Its interest was due process of law under the Vth and XIVth, not circumventing the will of the people of Florida. If this were some sort of power grab - some arbitrary imposition of George Bush's will - he could have simply federalized the Florida National Guard and taken over the hospice. Obviously, that wasn't the purpose.

They certainly couldnt' do that without major disapproval of the people. This was a circumvention of a court decision they didn't agree with.

 

[dilloduck]

Thats not how this amendment is written and you know this. It most certainly doesnt apply for the schiavo case because due process and rule of law was applied throughout the entire process.


They certainly couldnt' do that without major disapproval of the people. This was a circumvention of a court decision they didn't agree with.

tell me one thing that was circumvented. Absolutely nothing was changed .

 

[SmarterThanYou]

tell me one thing that was circumvented. Absolutely nothing was changed .

the final say of the states courts jurisdiction and authority was circumvented by the US congress.

 

[OCA]

tell me one thing that was circumvented. Absolutely nothing was changed .

Dillo its not about change, its about abuse of authority.

 

[Merlin1047]

And that's wonderful. Former slaves, then, were the first beneficiaries of the XIVth Amendment. But that doesn't mean former slaves were the sole reason for the creation of the amendment. It was written to provide federal remedy for state abuse of power.

The feds did no such thing in the Schaivo case. Congress set jurisdiction in the matter, as is perfectly within its constitutional power. Its interest was due process of law under the Vth and XIVth, not circumventing the will of the people of Florida. If this were some sort of power grab - some arbitrary imposition of George Bush's will - he could have simply federalized the Florida National Guard and taken over the hospice. Obviously, that wasn't the purpose.

Well MM, it certainly is entertaining to disagree with you. Since it happens so rarely, I feel obliged to take maximum advantage of the opportunity. :teeth: :teeth:

First, it seems to be to be quite a stretch to take either of the amendments you cited and apply them to the Schiavo case. First, this case has knocked around the courts for years, Terri Schiavo had an ad-litem guardian appointed, had her parents' lawyer representing her interest albeit somewhat by proxy, had the legislature of Florida and the Governor interceding on her behalf. Yet despite all this you want to claim lack of due process. Frankly, I have trouble seeing that. As I see it, the requirements of the 5th amendment have been amply satisfied.

Second, how does the Florida law which governed the case fall under the 14th amendment? This Florida law does not circumvent the Constitution in any manner whatever. If it had, it would have been tossed long before now.

If either the state of Florida or the Congress of the United States were truly interested in saving Terri Schiavo and doing it in a properly constitutional manner, they would have passed a law which would be applicable to everyone in the country instead of playing parlor games with specious "investigations" and changing jurisdictions. Instead these political hacks were more interested in grandstanding and getting face time on national television than they were in doing anything productive.

Doesn't it make you just a bit uneasy when you suddenly look around and see Jesse Jackson smiling at you??

 

[musicman]

Well MM, it certainly is entertaining to disagree with you. Since it happens so rarely, I feel obliged to take maximum advantage of the opportunity. :teeth: :teeth:

First, it seems to be to be quite a stretch to take either of the amendments you cited and apply them to the Schiavo case. First, this case has knocked around the courts for years, Terri Schiavo had an ad-litem guardian appointed, had her parents' lawyer representing her interest albeit somewhat by proxy, had the legislature of Florida and the Governor interceding on her behalf. Yet despite all this you want to claim lack of due process.

This IS fun, isn't it? The spice of life!

All I'm saying is that sufficient doubt existed to merit a closer look in what you'd surely admit were extraordinary circumstances. There were grave (oops) implications, the clock was ticking, and questions remained. That the case knocked around in the system for years says less about its merits - one way or the other - than the fact that it appears to have been a jurisdictional hot potato. I cannot, for the life of me, see the impropriety of Congress' actions.

Second, how does the Florida law which governed the case fall under the 14th amendment? This Florida law does not circumvent the Constitution in any manner whatever. If it had, it would have been tossed long before now.

If either the state of Florida or the Congress of the United States were truly interested in saving Terri Schiavo and doing it in a properly constitutional manner, they would have passed a law which would be applicable to everyone in the country instead of playing parlor games with specious "investigations" and changing jurisdictions. Instead these political hacks were more interested in grandstanding and getting face time on national television than they were in doing anything productive.

]



I can certainly appreciate hard-nosed realism, Merlin. It's served me pretty well throughout my life, I think. Still, I'm a bit uncomfortable with as broad a generalization as you make here. There are plenty of scuzbags in politics, it's true. But to make that fact the basis of our every assumption is wrong and dangerous. It is just as likely that Congress was handed a hot potato that the federal and state courts had been tossing around for years, and, in extraordinarily difficult circumstances, did their duty the best way they knew how. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I refuse to let eight years of Bill Clinton warp my view of mankind forever.

Doesn't it make you just a bit uneasy when you suddenly look around and see Jesse Jackson smiling at you??

THAT prick is, of course, another matter entirely! :teeth: