|
Grex > Agora47 > #128: Florida governor signs law to overturn court decision and keep vegetative woman alive | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 107 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 50 of 107:
| 
Oct 28 20:34 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 51 of 107:
|
Oct 28 20:44 UTC 2003 |
re #25:
> Recently heard that the husband also refuseto allow the Catholic
> Church to administer a final communion for fear she might be able
> to swallow showing she could be trained to eat without the tube.
The reason this pegs my skepticism meter is that as a Catholic,
every time I've taken Communion I've been required to make an
affirmative response in order to receive it. (Typically the
priest or eucharistic minister who's assisting will say "This
is the Body of Christ," and the communicant responds "Amen.")
I don't want to re-open the minor flame war we had over
generalizing from one Catholic's experience, especially since
the Church does make some accomodations for the gravely ill
who wish to receive the Eucharist, but conscious volition is
such an important part of the rite that I'd be very surprised
to hear that the Catholic Church allows unconscious individuals
to receive Holy Communion.
|
tod
|
|
response 52 of 107:
|
Oct 28 20:54 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 53 of 107:
|
Oct 28 21:49 UTC 2003 |
someone probably confused Last Rites (whatever its current nomeclature) with
Communion.
|
other
|
|
response 54 of 107:
|
Oct 29 03:28 UTC 2003 |
klg, you are really putting on a very effective performance of someone
best described as dense.
The courts act as a check on the legislature and the executive, but
without the legislative and the executive, the courts have no role to
play. There is a remarkably well developed interdependency between the
branches which gives each a measure of superiority over the others
without giving it sufficient room to achieve independence.
The courts do not legislate. They set precedent, by "publishing"
rulings, which is basically a statement which says "We believe that the
law applied in this case is not constitutional, and therefore we will not
uphold its application." The courts do not have the power to sentence
people for anything (except possibly contempt of court) which is not a
violation of a law the legislature has made. Your comment about the
courts legislating is pedantic crap recited by partisans with political
agendas who are only taken at face value by people who are ignorant of
the functions of the judicial system.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 55 of 107:
|
Oct 29 06:57 UTC 2003 |
That's not to say that the courts don't sometimes make bad decisions or
even decisions that go beyond their pervue - but that's true also of both
the legislative and executive branches. Someones have undoubtedly said,
many times, that the whole system can only be as good as the people
elected or appointed to office or bench.
|
remmers
|
|
response 56 of 107:
|
Oct 29 13:23 UTC 2003 |
Hence the need for regime change PDQ.
|
klg
|
|
response 57 of 107:
|
Oct 29 17:14 UTC 2003 |
Mr. other,
How, please, do court decisions that, for example, impose taxes fit
into your scheme that courts merely set precedent?
klg
|
mcnally
|
|
response 58 of 107:
|
Oct 29 17:24 UTC 2003 |
Suggest an example of a court case that simply invented a tax out
of thin air, with no legislative justification, and maybe then we
can talk usefully about it.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 59 of 107:
|
Oct 29 20:25 UTC 2003 |
Bruce's info about the refusal is half correct--communion was denied,
but not because they were afraid she'd swallow (doctors orders call for
nothing in her mouth, for fear of choking).
There's a decent rundown of the incident here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35156
|
other
|
|
response 60 of 107:
|
Oct 29 22:33 UTC 2003 |
what #58 said. Give me a concrete example, with source documentation, and
we'll examine it.
|
klg
|
|
response 61 of 107:
|
Oct 30 03:16 UTC 2003 |
Go forth and browse. . . . .
Idahoans for Tax Reform
... her explanations lacking.". Court imposed tax increases. We believe
Trout is responsible for court imposed tax increases. Out of the ...
www.idtaxreform.com/newsArticles/ chairmanMediaSmearJune2002.htm - 15k -
Cached - Similar pages
Long Island Power Authority
... accord ensures that each and every ratepayer will keep their 20
percent cut in electric rates, and staves off a billion dollar
court-imposed tax increase upon ...
www.lipower.org/newscenter/pr/2000/jan13_1_00.htm - 10k - Cached -
Similar pages
[PDF] NEW YORK STATE LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY
--------------------- ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... And most importantly, the LIPA Plan provides for a $1.2 billion
court-imposed tax increase for each and every homeowner and business
owner to be prevented. ...
www.lipower.org/pdfs/march10_1.pdf - Similar pages
The Claremont Crisis - Brown
... ruling in Claremont II came down in December 1997, there was a
moment of opportunity to simply amend our constitution and avoid the
court-imposed tax policy. ...
www.nationalreferendum.org/mbrown.html - 3k - Cached - Similar pages
T. Rex's Guide to Politics - Steve Forbes
... (**) Would end inheritance taxes. (**) Wants to block court-imposed
tax increases.
(**) Vowed to abolish the tax on long distance phone service. ...
quinnell.us/politics/2000/forbes.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
T. Rex's Scandal Points List - Continued
... (**) Said the federal income tax is an example of infringement
on American liberty. (**) Wants to block court-imposed tax increases.
...
quinnell.us/politics/issues2.html - 29k - Cached - Similar pages
Historic Desegregation Case Proves a Failure -- March 1998 ...
... St. Louis, who are just 9% of the state total. Clark's historic
court-imposed tax was upheld by the US Supreme Court in 1990. The ...
www.eagleforum.org/educate/1998/mar98/historic.html - 10k - Cached -
Similar pages
FOXNews.com - Views - Tongue Tied - Silencing Campers, ...
... that have had $2 billion of our tax dollars poured into them to
"remedy" desegregation (with some of those dollars coming from a
court-imposed tax on the State ...
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50306,00.html - 45k - Cached - Similar
pages
Hannibal Courier-Post Community Story Court urged to give farmers ...
... today ... is an extra-judicial, court-imposed tax increase,'' Don
Downing, a special assistant attorney general, told the court. ...
www.hannibal.net/stories/081999/Courttax.html - 6k - Supplemental Result
- Cached - Similar pages
[PDF] Steve Forbes 2000
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... Washington,DC o A constitutional amendment in New Hampshire to
protect local control of the schools and block court-imposed tax
increases; o California's ...
www.geocities.com/stevef2000.geo/f2kedu.pdf - Supplemental Result -
Similar pages
Result Page:
1 2 Next
|
rcurl
|
|
response 62 of 107:
|
Oct 30 03:57 UTC 2003 |
None of those citations are to any examples of a court that "simply
invented a tax out of thin air, with no legislative justification". All of
them concern conflicts brought to the court to be settled, the outcome of
which could affect taxes. The *court* did not create any of the cases.
The phrase "court-imposed tax" was, in every case, used only by an
attorney or commentator who was opposed to the settlement that might
increase taxes. No taxes would, however, have been *imposed by the
court*. The court would only have decided, in each case, for the plaintiff
or the defendant, and if any taxes increased as a result it would have
been solely because of the court finding the tax-raising action of a
legislature or board to be within their legal authority. That is, in fact,
the exact role for the court, and has no elements of the court
"legislating".
So - klg has come up empty (again).
|
klg
|
|
response 63 of 107:
|
Oct 30 04:13 UTC 2003 |
A distinction without a difference, Mr. rcurl.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 64 of 107:
|
Oct 30 07:03 UTC 2003 |
Not only a distinction, but an enormous difference from your claims.
In all cases you cited it was only the anti-tax attorneys and commentators
that used the "propaganda" term "court-imposed tax", hoping to influence
both the public and the court.
But you may still present us with documentation for a tax created by
a court (and not by a judication of legal question that happened to
involve a possible tax), if you can find one. So far, you have batted
000.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 65 of 107:
|
Oct 30 07:22 UTC 2003 |
In the first case, the question before the court was: "If local governments
enter multimillion dollar leaseback agreements does it constitute long-term
taxpayer debt therefore requiring a taxpayer vote?" Apparently, Ada
Couunty, Idaho, entered such an agreement. Also apparently, from the
article klg cited, the court ruled that such an agreement did not require
a taxpayer vote. The court did not create the "leaseback agreeement;"
the county government (legislators, no? Or executives?) did.
In the second case, a county apparently allowed the construction of
a nuclear plant but then interfered with its opening. The owners of
the plant sued the county and won: "The Pataki plan also sought to
prevent huge property tax increases in Suffolk County due to the threat
of repaying an outstanding $1.2 billion judgement on the never opened
Shoreham nuclear power plant. Over time, the value of the judgement,
which LILCO originally won in 19 96, has grown to more than $1.4 billion."
The county owed $1.4 billion because of its apparently unlawful actions.
The court merely noted that the county had acted unlawfully and required
it to make restitution. How the county raised the money to meet its
obligation was not included in the court's judgement.
I'm not going to bother reading the rest of the klg's citations, since
it's rather obvious he didn't, either.
|
richard
|
|
response 66 of 107:
|
Oct 30 08:26 UTC 2003 |
This doesn't need to get bogged down in citations. What it comes down to
is if you marry someone, and you love that person, can you love them so
much that you want to protect how they die as much as how they lived? can
you love someone enough that you want them to die with dignity? I hope if
I ever get married that the person I marry loves me enough that they won't
keep my body alive well past when my brain is dead. That they won't let
people dress me up and parade me around like some sentient being when I am
not that anymore. Dying is natural. It is part of the life process. Let
it happen with dignity and respect.
|
richard
|
|
response 67 of 107:
|
Oct 30 08:37 UTC 2003 |
And btw, the ACLU has intervened on behalf of the husband (michael
shiavo) to challenge the law passed to keep his woman's body alive as
unconstitutional. The claim is that this law signed by jeb bush applied
ONLY to terri schiavo:
"The guarantee of equal protection is that no person
may be singled out to be governed by a wholly different legal regime than
the rest of society," the court brief filed Wednesday said.
the argument being that the legislature in florida should not pass a law
tailored to apply to only one person. that doing so is unconstutional.
|
richard
|
|
response 68 of 107:
|
Oct 30 08:38 UTC 2003 |
er...I meant his wife's, not his woman's, I wish grex allowed one to edit
the body of text
/.
|
richard
|
|
response 69 of 107:
|
Oct 30 08:42 UTC 2003 |
from cnn.com article about the ACLU case:
The lawyers said this case is "about whether the legislative and
branches of the state of Florida can nullify the decisions of the courts of
this state and can suspend the operation of the Constitution of the state of
Florida with respect to a single citizen."
well klg, can they?
|
klg
|
|
response 70 of 107:
|
Oct 30 17:14 UTC 2003 |
(The "lawyers" said that? In that case, the argument is automatically
suspect.
Incidentally, Mr. richard, are not legislatures constantly making laws
that apply to only a targeted subset of the population? If we recall
correctly, the U.S. Congress itself passes "private" bills as this:
Private Bills: Procedure in the House
Richard S. Beth, Specialist in Legislative Process
Government Division
July 21, 1998
"A private bill is one providing benefits to specified individuals
(including corporate bodies). Individuals sometimes request relief
through private law when administrative or legal remedies are
exhausted, but Congress seems more often to view private legislation as
appropriate in cases for which no other remedy is available, and when
its enactment would, in a broad sense, afford equity."
So why the kerfuffle now, after over 200 years of private bills?? And
why are people who are adamantly against the death penalty so anxious
to kill this defenseless woman before all legal channels have been
exhausted???)
|
richard
|
|
response 71 of 107:
|
Oct 30 17:37 UTC 2003 |
All legal channels HAVE been exhausted. This woman has been in this
condition for thirteen years, and has been considered clinically brain
dead for three. This has been all the way through the court system, and
every court, EVERY one, again and again and again, sided with the husband.
It was only when all legal avenues were used and all courts and judges
came to the same decision, that the legislature got involved.
Constitutionally you CANNOT put the needs of one citizen above the needs
of any other citizen, i.e. everyone is entitled to EQUAL protection under
the law. This law the florida legislature passed is written such that it
only applies to Terri Schiavo. It gives her rights that do not apply to
anyone else. That is unconstitutional. I'd lay odds that the Florida
Supreme Court overturns it pretty quickly.
And this is not about "killing this woman", this is about no longer force
feeding her body. If the tube is removed, and the body ends up starting
to swallow, then the body will be saying it wants food. Then you feed
it. If the body does
not swallow, the body will be saying-- as it has been saying-- that it
dose not want food. If the body does not want food, in the condition it
is in, then let it die naturally. As it wants to. As nature intends for
it to. KLG, I do not understand your conception of morality, if morality
in your mind means NOT allowing nature, or God, or whatever, to take its
natural course.
It is sick to keep a body alive for no other reason than to keep it alive.
This is a body that doctors have convinced courts at every level,
repeatedly, for years-- has no hope of ever recovering. You wouldn't
treat a dog or a horse that way. But I guess you think human beings have
less dignity right klg?
|
jp2
|
|
response 72 of 107:
|
Oct 30 18:16 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 73 of 107:
|
Oct 30 19:01 UTC 2003 |
While I think that what the Florida legislature, and the Florida governor
did were unjustified (and will probably be reversed in court), I would
not make that claim on the basis of an "equal protection" argument. However
I think jp2 is pretty far off base: there are many Constitutional protections
that apply to all citizens, giving "equal protection under the law". Also,
the death penalty in Michigan was abolished a long time ago, so no crusade
is required (although one may be necessary to retain that humanitarian
provision).
|
richard
|
|
response 74 of 107:
|
Oct 30 19:03 UTC 2003 |
jp2, equal protection IS guaranteed in the 14th amendment to the Constitution.
Go read it. Fourteenth amendment, section 1, last sentence:
"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 ITS LAWS"
If you create a law that allows more protections to some citizens-- or one
citizen-- than any other citizen, you are violating the 14th amendment, which
GUARANTEES every citizen equal protection.
|