The Freeman's Burden:

To defend the principles of human liberty; to educate; to be vigilant against the ever expanding power of the state.

Thursday, March 24, 2005

No, seriously, this will be the last thing I say about the Shiavo case

The following was posted in response to my comments on you know what --
Anonymous said...
You, of all people should know, that the sanctity of human life trumps states rights. Or would you have foregone fighting the Civil War for the benefit of your black neighbors and co-workers?
I went to leave a brief reply, but it grew into a monster, so I just decided to post it:

Free2Smooze said...
Respectfully, I must disagree with your analysis and analogy. Our national government was established with clearly delineated powers codified in a constitution. There are very good reasons for this. The founders feared the tendency of government to consolidate power over time. This case represented a crack in that wall that separates state power from the federal as well as judicial from legislative. If congress is allowed to mandate that the court must act in a specific way, then that separation is breached and the potential consequences could be far more severe than the death of this unfortunate woman. Allowing this case to conclude in the state system in no way collides with the sanctity of life. Given your argument, living wills would be worthless because the sanctity of life would trump contract law just as it allegedly trumps states' rights to ajudicate its own cases free from federal involvement. The state courts are not branch offices of the federal judiciary and state supreme courts are not just another federal appeals court.
The Constitution claims that all men are created equal, in the slave states this what not the case. In the course of attempting to rectify an unconstitutional practice, the South illegally withdrew from the country and a war of cessation began. But the Constitution in no way guarantees federal review of all state cases, nor does it grant the congress the right to legislate directives to the courts. I have the utmost respect for the convictions of those that are passionate about this woman's case, but the state courts have found that the husband is the legal guardian and that it would not be her wish to be artificially sustained. Of course we can quibble about the facts of the case, we can quibble about the results of the O.J. Simpson case, but we can agree that the court reached a decision and that is that. The same respect should be paid to the courts in the Shiavo case.


Post a Comment

<< Home