Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (104804)	3/18/2005 3:11:49 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793800

But isn't that exactly what we are doing by taking the decision away from her husband and giving it to Congress? but the right to life isn't something I care to see subjected to the will of the majority.

To: Ilaine who wrote (104804)	3/18/2005 5:09:52 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793800

so it seems to me that the Founders believed that due process issues concerning ending a person's life are federal issues. I don't see where you find that "so" or where you want to go with it. Due process for these types of cases is long established in the states. If there were an issue about it being appropriately placed in the states, you'd think a groundswell would have arisen much earlier, not one day before one famous woman was to have her feeding tube removed. You'd think that sometime between the Founders and the day before removing Schiavo's feeding tube, a couple of centuries, someone would have questioned the appropriateness of Florida and other states making these determinations. And folks in the Florida legislature who came to "her" rescue last time and who have always been in a position to change the Florida law if it was unsatisfactory would have just changed the law rather than or in addition to legislating especially for Schiavo. Or, given the propensity of Washington to suck up functions, there would be a federal process for end-of-life decisions by now, you'd think. At the very least, the SC would have taken up this particular case when it had a chance. But it didn't. Just because the process due occurs at a lower level doesn't mean that it isn't federally accepted and acceptable due process. I didn't see any big light bulb coming on in the last day indicating that this function needs to be federalized. All I see is people who want to trump the due process that has occurred particular to Schiavo. Federalism, as I see it, is about the states acting as "laboratories for democracy" but the right to life isn't something I care to see subjected to the will of the majority. Don't follow this, either. Whether the law and/or the process occur at the federal or the state level, it's still based on the will of the majority. The only way to get it away from the majority is to assign it to some functionary to decide arbitrarily, utterly independent of law. Or hand it to some court with the special power to not just review the law and the application of the law in the cases that come before the court but to arbitrarily ignore both and decide whatever they want whenever they want. If folks want to change the process that is due in such cases, fine, they can change it. Through the front door.