it seems a bit awkward to disqualify good intent because that good intent would also galvanize a group of constituents.
I would have to agree with Brainlesswonder here, except that he fails to actually show any kind of good intent on the part of our Congress in this manner. Quite to the contrary, as I mentioned before, despite the fact that the idea was discussed to forge legislation that affected all people in the situation Terri Shiavo finds herself, the idea was quickly shot down. The Congress had no will to debate or approve legislation that would show good intent - despite their powerful arguments on the floor proclaiming a 'right to life' - but rather chose only to intervene in a case that had caught national attention. That two of the reasons to vote for this legislation was the "pro-life base will be excited," and that it is a "great political issue -- this is a tough issue for Democrats," only further solidifies the notion that this was an attempt to capture the publics attention and force the democrats into a lose/lose political situation. Exciting your base with good intent is certainly one thing, but one would find it hard to argue that good intent and putting ones political opponant in a tough spot goes hand in hand. Making political hay while claiming to be saving the life of a woman is simply dispicible and shows nothing that could be construed as Good intent.
Having legislation struck down is not circumventing the law. I totally agree - however, as far as I know, this is not a case of striking down legislation, rather it is one of trying to avoid the legislation of a state that Congress has no will of creating legislation to oppose. It is a case in which those who have so often spoke of "Activist Judges" and decried their existence, instead turn the case federal in hopes of finding their own activist judges.
They were well within their legal and constitutional right to extend the federal jurisdiction to hear the Shiavo case. This is correct, however, they have shown no motive nor just cause to do so aside from that of political gain. While I am certain there are at least a few members of congress who held no motive aside from that of their own belief in Terri's chances of recuperation, Tom Delay - who spearheaded the call to arms - and many of his fellow party members (Who refused to enact broad legislation) clearly did not, or at least felt it necessary to showcase the political benefits to their fellow party members to gain their support. Congress gave no reason, aside from their 'base exciting' arguments of the 'the right to life' to justify the Fedaralizing of the case. They showed no problem with the court or the decision, aside from the fact that they disagreed with the law. And rather than using their constitutionally granted powers to change laws, they used other powers to change the venue.
Using constitutionally granted powers for political gain and with such narrow focus devalues the constitution itself.
There are buzzwords like "constitutional states rights", which in the end are exactly that, buzzwords. Certainly, Constitutional States Rights is a phrase, and a popular one at that in certain circles. Made most popular by things like Article IV, Sec. 1 of the Constitution which states Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. It goes on to say And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
And then of course, once we move past the Constitution and on to the Bill of rights, there's a great Ammendment, cleverly titled The 10th Ammendment, which states The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. That should clear up the whole "States Rights" issue.
This is of course where it gets fuzzy. Does the law allow Congress to change the venue of a case that's already seen it's way up through the courts. Yes, it most certainly does. Does this give Full faith to the judicial Proceedings of every other State? I would say no. This motion by congress doesn't call into question the general law, or make any claims of judicial misconduct. Rather the court that respected that law had it's ruling called into question on the grounds that Congress felt Terri Shiavo had a 'right to live' - something several precidents would presume does not actually exist (State and Federal executions, for example.)
Fortunately, the federal courts did, as Brainless said, quickly review the case and upheld the decision of the court - which clearly was not the intent of congress. Their clear hope was that the law could be circimvented in one specific case, and never was there presented any evidence as to why a federal court was needed in this manner. Had there been any pause for thought on judicial misconduct or in the law not having been properly executed, one could easily see an argument for judicial review. Sadly, this was not the argument those in congress made. They made pleas to get around the law - and that's exactly what they tried.
Is it within their power? Certainly, Brainless is correct in this point. The President also possesses the power to pardon anyone of any crime, simply because he feels like it. Does that make it right? Is that in the spirit of the seperation of powers? Or is it just the way things are?
The seperation of powers is what the bulk of the constitution is about, and the relegation of every other power to the states is critical to the existence of states UNDER one government, rather than one Government with different names.
It seems that I was mistaken, I had thought that the legality of this issue was already conceded. Party because I hadn't notice this particular post, but mostly because of the constant references to my being correct in my assessment of the legality of it.
The first two paragraphs are actually insulting to any intelligent person that might read them. Here, in less than fifty words we have witness the whole "states rights issue" being "cleared up". Congress can chose to extend it's juristiction, period. Both sides agree, so this certainly seems like a non-issue at this point. Congress did not appeal the case, they simply made gave permission to he federal court to hear the appeal if it choses to do so. The lower court could have, just like Supreme Court, chosen not to hear it. They did, maybe they felt it's the least they can do to honor the great effort of the parents of this woman that is dying.
The rest of the commentary about presidential pardons, the "separation of powers", the crock of referring to the bulk of the constitution as being about "the separation of powers", the relegation of powers to the state, is pretty much irrelevent usless banter. This was not framed as a discusssion about states rights, that's just a floundering effort at trying to salvage accusations of legal impropriety that were simply not valid.
The first two paragraphs are actually insulting to any intelligent person that might read them. Here, in less than fifty words we have witness the whole "states rights issue" being "cleared up". Sorry, what I meant to imply was cleared up was the insinuation you made, saying "of jurisdiction rules that I am not aware of, that are not defined in the constitution." I simply meant that it is clearly defined within the Constitution and further clarified in the Bill of Rights. I in no way intended to say that the "States rights Issue" was cleared up as it pertained to the ongoing debate within this country - I only meant to say that "States rights" are more than just buzzwords
This was not framed as a discusssion about states rights. Perhaps I could direct your attention to Paragraph one and two of the second post of my opening argument (split due to LJ post limits.) I think I am very clearly talking about states rights and how it ties to my opening statement. So clearly in fact, you posted about them, relegating them to buzzwords, in your own rebuttal. Claiming that the debate wasn't framed to discuss this fact seems to be ignoring not only my initial argument, but your own rebuttal.
the crock of referring to the bulk of the constitution as being about "the separation of powers" Might I draw your attention to Articles I, II, III, V & VI of The Constitution of the United States. The present the powers appointed to each branch of the government, as well as their limitations and obligations to the other branches.
Since the majority of the framed debate regarding the constitutionality, the "circumvention of the legal system", and the "treading upon the legal system" has been conceded as an inaccurate assessment, we are only left to address the ethical part of it. This, in the end, is a much less important piece than whether or not our judicial system was violated in some way.
As this issue sped forward it is true that congress could not agree on legislation that would apply to everyone in this type of situation, however, it would be inappropriate to not mention that a primary reason was the unintended negative effect that hastily passed legislation can have. A shining example of this is the current bipartisan battering of the Patriot Act. Congress is working against a clock, this woman is going to die. Trying to stop this one situation, until they can properly formulate an appropriate and concise bill, effects only one person and eliminates the potential of passing a bill that could be ineffective or abusable in it's scope. Suggesting that congess has no will to try and advance this issue again, is at best misleading.
It is a politicians job to work for their constituents. That's what they do. They are elected, and they are by their very name politicians and political leaders. It's interesting to hear the act of politicians exciting their base by doing something that their base supports being labeled as unethical. It was suggested that it would be hard to argue that good intent and putting ones political opponent in a tough spot can go hand in hand. I ask, why? The opponent, in this case, wants the exact opposite of what many of the Repulicans constituents want. The opponents want this girl to be allowed to die. If that's an awkward spot to be in, there is certainly nothing unethical about putting them there. Is it unethical to make someone who supports the war in Iraq uncomfortable by showing people pictures of dead civilians? Is the good intent of not wanting a war in a foriegn country unethical if it puts the people of opposing thought in a "tough spot". I would certainly hope not.
The fact exists that a very large portion of this country did not want Shiavo to have her feeding tube removed, including her parents. The fact exists that this became a huge story, and has been on and off for a few years. The fact exists that politicians did what politicians do, it is their job to motivate and satisfy their base, everything they do is at it's very core political and for political gain. Most importantly they did everything that they could do with-in their legal abilities. There was no forcing of courts to hear cases.
I find it interesting that they are to be faulted for the legitimate extending of juristiction instead of using their "constitutionally granted powers to change laws." They worked within the law, period. They could have gone further and chose not to. The president could have issued an executive order, but did not. Certainly, this case has been too big of a dance party, but it's far from the first and won't be the last overblown poltical battle fought in this lands political system. However, if what they did was legal, and what they did pleased their constiuents then I can honestly say that the statement framing this debate is false. Even accepting that all politicians actions are politically motivated and thusly all acts by politicians are unethical, the statement would still be predominantly false.
I think that Terry should be allowed to die, but I can not fault those who disagree covering the legal gamut to try and prevent that.
Trying to stop this one situation, until they can properly formulate an appropriate and concise bill, effects only one person and eliminates the potential of passing a bill that could be ineffective or abusable in it's scope. It is congresses job to pass general laws, not laws pertaining to one individual.
The fact exists that a very large portion of this country did not want Shiavo to have her feeding tube removed, including her parents. The fact exists that an even larger portion of the country (polls range between 60-70%) feel just the opposite. everything they do is at it's very core political and for political gain. And here I thought everything they do involved governing the country and passing laws meant to make this country a better place. Political gain was something we as a nation detest, but tolerate - not applaud nor argue that's it's okay that it is everything they do.
However, if what they did was legal, and what they did pleased their constiuents then I can honestly say that the statement framing this debate is false. Unfortunately, what they did did not in fact please their base. What Republicans did violated their very core beliefs - the idea of States rights. It may seem like I'm beating a dead horse (as you've seemed to have written off the crux of the debate) but as one Republican (former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga) put it "To simply say that the 'culture of life,' or whatever you call it means that we don't have to pay attention to the principles of federalism or separation of powers is certainly not a conservative viewpoint," Or as another, Proffessor Allan Lichtman, who chairs the history department at American University in Washington, "It contradicts a lot of what those behind it say they believe: the sanctity of the family, the sacred bond between husband and wife, the ability of all of us to make private decisions without the hand of government intervening, deference to states and localities as opposed to the centralized government."
It was a cheap ploy, an attempt to gain support from a certain segment of their party, while hoping the other portion of it wouldn't sit up and take notice. Unfortunately for them, the rest of the nation did (Some polls have put diisapproval of the actions taken by congress at as high as 80%, while most have hovered in the 70% range). To say that Congress stopped where they did because it was all they were willing to do, while also arguing it's okay to play politics to your base is being very blind to the backlash in this country against the intervention by congress. They've most likely stopped because their ploy backfired and states rights was tossed back in their faces.
I would have to agree with Brainlesswonder here, except that he fails to actually show any kind of good intent on the part of our Congress in this manner. Quite to the contrary, as I mentioned before, despite the fact that the idea was discussed to forge legislation that affected all people in the situation Terri Shiavo finds herself, the idea was quickly shot down. The Congress had no will to debate or approve legislation that would show good intent - despite their powerful arguments on the floor proclaiming a 'right to life' - but rather chose only to intervene in a case that had caught national attention. That two of the reasons to vote for this legislation was the "pro-life base will be excited," and that it is a "great political issue -- this is a tough issue for Democrats," only further solidifies the notion that this was an attempt to capture the publics attention and force the democrats into a lose/lose political situation. Exciting your base with good intent is certainly one thing, but one would find it hard to argue that good intent and putting ones political opponant in a tough spot goes hand in hand. Making political hay while claiming to be saving the life of a woman is simply dispicible and shows nothing that could be construed as Good intent.
Having legislation struck down is not circumventing the law. I totally agree - however, as far as I know, this is not a case of striking down legislation, rather it is one of trying to avoid the legislation of a state that Congress has no will of creating legislation to oppose. It is a case in which those who have so often spoke of "Activist Judges" and decried their existence, instead turn the case federal in hopes of finding their own activist judges.
They were well within their legal and constitutional right to extend the federal jurisdiction to hear the Shiavo case. This is correct, however, they have shown no motive nor just cause to do so aside from that of political gain. While I am certain there are at least a few members of congress who held no motive aside from that of their own belief in Terri's chances of recuperation, Tom Delay - who spearheaded the call to arms - and many of his fellow party members (Who refused to enact broad legislation) clearly did not, or at least felt it necessary to showcase the political benefits to their fellow party members to gain their support. Congress gave no reason, aside from their 'base exciting' arguments of the 'the right to life' to justify the Fedaralizing of the case. They showed no problem with the court or the decision, aside from the fact that they disagreed with the law. And rather than using their constitutionally granted powers to change laws, they used other powers to change the venue.
Using constitutionally granted powers for political gain and with such narrow focus devalues the constitution itself.
Reply
And then of course, once we move past the Constitution and on to the Bill of rights, there's a great Ammendment, cleverly titled The 10th Ammendment, which states The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. That should clear up the whole "States Rights" issue.
This is of course where it gets fuzzy. Does the law allow Congress to change the venue of a case that's already seen it's way up through the courts. Yes, it most certainly does. Does this give Full faith to the judicial Proceedings of every other State? I would say no. This motion by congress doesn't call into question the general law, or make any claims of judicial misconduct. Rather the court that respected that law had it's ruling called into question on the grounds that Congress felt Terri Shiavo had a 'right to live' - something several precidents would presume does not actually exist (State and Federal executions, for example.)
Fortunately, the federal courts did, as Brainless said, quickly review the case and upheld the decision of the court - which clearly was not the intent of congress. Their clear hope was that the law could be circimvented in one specific case, and never was there presented any evidence as to why a federal court was needed in this manner. Had there been any pause for thought on judicial misconduct or in the law not having been properly executed, one could easily see an argument for judicial review. Sadly, this was not the argument those in congress made. They made pleas to get around the law - and that's exactly what they tried.
Is it within their power? Certainly, Brainless is correct in this point. The President also possesses the power to pardon anyone of any crime, simply because he feels like it. Does that make it right? Is that in the spirit of the seperation of powers? Or is it just the way things are?
The seperation of powers is what the bulk of the constitution is about, and the relegation of every other power to the states is critical to the existence of states UNDER one government, rather than one Government with different names.
Reply
The first two paragraphs are actually insulting to any intelligent person that might read them. Here, in less than fifty words we have witness the whole "states rights issue" being "cleared up". Congress can chose to extend it's juristiction, period. Both sides agree, so this certainly seems like a non-issue at this point. Congress did not appeal the case, they simply made gave permission to he federal court to hear the appeal if it choses to do so. The lower court could have, just like Supreme Court, chosen not to hear it. They did, maybe they felt it's the least they can do to honor the great effort of the parents of this woman that is dying.
The rest of the commentary about presidential pardons, the "separation of powers", the crock of referring to the bulk of the constitution as being about "the separation of powers", the relegation of powers to the state, is pretty much irrelevent usless banter. This was not framed as a discusssion about states rights, that's just a floundering effort at trying to salvage accusations of legal impropriety that were simply not valid.
Reply
This was not framed as a discusssion about states rights. Perhaps I could direct your attention to Paragraph one and two of the second post of my opening argument (split due to LJ post limits.) I think I am very clearly talking about states rights and how it ties to my opening statement. So clearly in fact, you posted about them, relegating them to buzzwords, in your own rebuttal. Claiming that the debate wasn't framed to discuss this fact seems to be ignoring not only my initial argument, but your own rebuttal.
the crock of referring to the bulk of the constitution as being about "the separation of powers" Might I draw your attention to Articles I, II, III, V & VI of The Constitution of the United States. The present the powers appointed to each branch of the government, as well as their limitations and obligations to the other branches.
Reply
As this issue sped forward it is true that congress could not agree on legislation that would apply to everyone in this type of situation, however, it would be inappropriate to not mention that a primary reason was the unintended negative effect that hastily passed legislation can have. A shining example of this is the current bipartisan battering of the Patriot Act. Congress is working against a clock, this woman is going to die. Trying to stop this one situation, until they can properly formulate an appropriate and concise bill, effects only one person and eliminates the potential of passing a bill that could be ineffective or abusable in it's scope. Suggesting that congess has no will to try and advance this issue again, is at best misleading.
It is a politicians job to work for their constituents. That's what they do. They are elected, and they are by their very name politicians and political leaders. It's interesting to hear the act of politicians exciting their base by doing something that their base supports being labeled as unethical. It was suggested that it would be hard to argue that good intent and putting ones political opponent in a tough spot can go hand in hand. I ask, why? The opponent, in this case, wants the exact opposite of what many of the Repulicans constituents want. The opponents want this girl to be allowed to die. If that's an awkward spot to be in, there is certainly nothing unethical about putting them there. Is it unethical to make someone who supports the war in Iraq uncomfortable by showing people pictures of dead civilians? Is the good intent of not wanting a war in a foriegn country unethical if it puts the people of opposing thought in a "tough spot". I would certainly hope not.
The fact exists that a very large portion of this country did not want Shiavo to have her feeding tube removed, including her parents. The fact exists that this became a huge story, and has been on and off for a few years. The fact exists that politicians did what politicians do, it is their job to motivate and satisfy their base, everything they do is at it's very core political and for political gain. Most importantly they did everything that they could do with-in their legal abilities. There was no forcing of courts to hear cases.
I find it interesting that they are to be faulted for the legitimate extending of juristiction instead of using their "constitutionally granted powers to change laws." They worked within the law, period. They could have gone further and chose not to. The president could have issued an executive order, but did not. Certainly, this case has been too big of a dance party, but it's far from the first and won't be the last overblown poltical battle fought in this lands political system. However, if what they did was legal, and what they did pleased their constiuents then I can honestly say that the statement framing this debate is false. Even accepting that all politicians actions are politically motivated and thusly all acts by politicians are unethical, the statement would still be predominantly false.
I think that Terry should be allowed to die, but I can not fault those who disagree covering the legal gamut to try and prevent that.
Reply
The fact exists that a very large portion of this country did not want Shiavo to have her feeding tube removed, including her parents. The fact exists that an even larger portion of the country (polls range between 60-70%) feel just the opposite. everything they do is at it's very core political and for political gain. And here I thought everything they do involved governing the country and passing laws meant to make this country a better place. Political gain was something we as a nation detest, but tolerate - not applaud nor argue that's it's okay that it is everything they do.
However, if what they did was legal, and what they did pleased their constiuents then I can honestly say that the statement framing this debate is false. Unfortunately, what they did did not in fact please their base. What Republicans did violated their very core beliefs - the idea of States rights. It may seem like I'm beating a dead horse (as you've seemed to have written off the crux of the debate) but as one Republican (former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga) put it "To simply say that the 'culture of life,' or whatever you call it means that we don't have to pay attention to the principles of federalism or separation of powers is certainly not a conservative viewpoint," Or as another, Proffessor Allan Lichtman, who chairs the history department at American University in Washington, "It contradicts a lot of what those behind it say they believe: the sanctity of the family, the sacred bond between husband and wife, the ability of all of us to make private decisions without the hand of government intervening, deference to states and localities as opposed to the centralized government."
It was a cheap ploy, an attempt to gain support from a certain segment of their party, while hoping the other portion of it wouldn't sit up and take notice. Unfortunately for them, the rest of the nation did (Some polls have put diisapproval of the actions taken by congress at as high as 80%, while most have hovered in the 70% range). To say that Congress stopped where they did because it was all they were willing to do, while also arguing it's okay to play politics to your base is being very blind to the backlash in this country against the intervention by congress. They've most likely stopped because their ploy backfired and states rights was tossed back in their faces.
Reply
Leave a comment