The Freeman's Burden:

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

Sunday, March 20, 2005

Picking over Terri's corpse

I would like to predicate my remarks on the Shiavo case with this admonishment: The decision that this family faces is none of my business, nor yours. It is a uniquely personal question. Yet the Congress of the United States has decided to make this question their own. By now, everyone has heard the facts of the case. Rare praise for the media which has done a surprisingly good job of covering the issue with depth and fairness. But the underlying issue that should be paramount in this debate has not gotten a hearing deserving of the gravity of its implications, the federalization of the state courts and the subjugation of the federal courts. Both represent sudden and profound erosion of the separation of powers both in the federal/state dichotomy and within the federal system. For the first time, congress has written a case specific law for the expressed purpose of undermining the authority of the state of Florida and the United States Supreme Court that has, on two occasions, opted not to take the case up on review. The passing of this law will represent a huge defeat for the rule of law and not of man. The congress, and the President, are saying that the law is not supreme when there are pro-life voters to be assuaged. The Republican Party once represented states' rights and limited government, but it is all to obvious that this is no longer the case. The emperor is naked and has been revealed in the most cynical of ploys; to trade on a woman's life and her family's pain for the sake of winning political capital. At what cost?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Three-fourths of all the blogs I checked out today (I'm on vacation and it's raining) had a post about Terri Schaivo. All the news media except possibly good old ESPN are carrying the story. I wish Congress had had the good sense and taste to stay out of it, but they couldn't resist the pressure from Florida and the possibility of political advantage. Strange as it may seem, I actually feel a little sorry for my representative in Congress. He is a young career politician from a safe district who votes with his party on every issue, even when it harms our local economy. I can well imagine that he would have preferred to abstain from voting on this horrendous bill, but he has been mentioned as a candidate for Ways and Means. How does he turn back after he becomes so cynical and corrupt?

10:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a sad state we've come to in this country when we think that legality trumps morality.

The question we need to be asking is "What is the right thing to do?", not "What is the legal thing to do?"

God protect us from "conservatives" who make moral judgments on the basis of legality. It's a very slippery slope.

4:37 PM  
Blogger Free2Smooze said...

So the object of law is to promote morality? Who's morality? The majorities? That is very scary for those of us who live a life's philosophy inconsistant with the morality of the majority. Mill called it the tyranny of the majority. Does the imposition of a moral code on those who do not share those values consititute a the ideals of a free society? I think not.

5:53 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home