Constitutional issue: Terri Schiavo
Terri Schiavo (pronounced shyvo) is a middle-aged woman who has been in a vegetative state for years. Her husband wants her feeding tube removed; her parents want her to be kept alive. The state and now the federal government side with the parents; the courts generally side with the husband. As I write, court decisions have resulted in the removal of the feeding tube, and Mrs. Schiavo will expire in at most a few weeks unless the decisions are reversed.
The constitutional issue is whether Congress had a right to pass a special act authorizing federal courts to take up the issue. Many people are saying Congress should not have done that, because whether the feeding tube should be removed is a state issue, not subject to federal jurisdiction.
I disagree on technical grounds. The fourteenth amendment says, in part: "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."
The fourteenth amendment was adopted after the Civil War to protect the rights of minorities, specifically former slaves. Before the war, the basic presumption behind the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was that a strong central government could become tyrannical, and therefore the states were the guardians of liberty. After the war, that presumption was reversed. When slavery was abolished, it was noted that some of the states, but not the federal government, had been supporters of slavery, and so the federal government became the guardian of liberty.
The fourteenth amendment has been interpreted to mean that any action by a state that might be construed as a deprivation of life, liberty, or property may be reviewed by the federal government or federal courts to determine whether a person's "civil rights" are being violated.
It's just ironic that the federal government is intervening to protect the life of an insentient white middle-class middle-aged woman, not to protect the lives of minorities unfairly sentenced to death in state courts. But that's how the ball bounces these days.
The constitutional issue is whether Congress had a right to pass a special act authorizing federal courts to take up the issue. Many people are saying Congress should not have done that, because whether the feeding tube should be removed is a state issue, not subject to federal jurisdiction.
I disagree on technical grounds. The fourteenth amendment says, in part: "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."
The fourteenth amendment was adopted after the Civil War to protect the rights of minorities, specifically former slaves. Before the war, the basic presumption behind the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was that a strong central government could become tyrannical, and therefore the states were the guardians of liberty. After the war, that presumption was reversed. When slavery was abolished, it was noted that some of the states, but not the federal government, had been supporters of slavery, and so the federal government became the guardian of liberty.
The fourteenth amendment has been interpreted to mean that any action by a state that might be construed as a deprivation of life, liberty, or property may be reviewed by the federal government or federal courts to determine whether a person's "civil rights" are being violated.
It's just ironic that the federal government is intervening to protect the life of an insentient white middle-class middle-aged woman, not to protect the lives of minorities unfairly sentenced to death in state courts. But that's how the ball bounces these days.
posted by GrumbleGrouch at 10:08 AM
1 Comments:
I watched the Maher show last friday as he interviewed Bill O'Reilly, and Jesse Jackson, and then discussed the outcome of this issue with his panel. O'Reilly berated the demogoguery on both sides, Jackson chose to support the right to life issue, and the panel uniformly agreed with Maher's position that the rule of law had been abrogated in this case. But I found myself most in agreement with panelist Cornell West as he pointed out that the whole issue was just another republican weapon of mass distraction.
Post a Comment
<< Home