Bush\'s response
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Today millions of Americans are saddened by the death of Terri Schiavo. ... I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected.

"Especially those who live at the mercy of others. The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak. In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life."


[/ QUOTE ]

Given Bush's beliefs (as stated above) and his position as, arguably, the strongest figure in the US, did he do enough?

Re: Bush\'s response
 

Considering that he had precisely zero jurisdiction, I'd say he did too much.

Show me something in the Constitution that shows that the Executive brach of the Federal Gov't has any authority at all in this case.

Re: Bush\'s response
 

[ QUOTE ]
to continue to work to build a culture of life where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, right. This from the man who executed 152 people in Texas in less than four years. Frequently reviewing the cases for less than 15 minutes before denying clemency. Executing the mentally disabled. Signing the Medical Exigency law in Texas that allows for life support to be pulled, if the medical expenses can't be paid. Or in the case of MINORS, AGAINST THE PARENTS WISHES.

He can take his "culture of life" and choke to death on it.

Re: Bush\'s response
 

[ QUOTE ]
Considering that he had precisely zero jurisdiction, I'd say he did too much.

Show me something in the Constitution that shows that the Executive brach of the Federal Gov't has any authority at all in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really like the way you think.

Re: Bush\'s response
 

REALLY don't want to get into this discussion, but here is where he Constitutionally has/had the authority to do something...

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

and that goes well with...

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Granted, the spirit of the amendment was to protect those charged with a crime, however, if they are covered, surely those who are innocent are covered. Cruel and unusual punishment also would apply here I think.

Basically, the Congress and the President had every right to do what they did. In fact, the courts cannot ENFORCE LAW, only the Executive can do that, thus, Bush was doing exactly what he SHOULD have done in this situation.

This reminds me of a great quote from Andrew Jackson, I don't have it verbatim, so I will paraphrase.

"(Supreme Court Chief Justice) Marshall has made his ruling, now let's see him enforce it..." or something to that effect. See, even 150 years ago people were fed up with the SCotUS.

Re: Bush\'s response
 

"Given Bush's beliefs (as stated above) and his position as, arguably, the strongest figure in the US, did he do enough?" Personally, I don't believe anything Bush says.

I believe Bush had the record for executions. I still remember the interview where he snickered about a woman on death row pleading for her life... he mocked her.

Bush's war on Iraq led to how many innocents being killed? The man couldn't wait to go to war.

This is the first administration to advocate torture... to lock up suspects without trials...

"In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life." This completely contradicts his practice with the death penalty.

Re: Bush\'s response
 

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I don't believe anything Bush says.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't say![img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe Bush had the record for executions. I still remember the interview where he snickered about a woman on death row pleading for her life... he mocked her.

[/ QUOTE ]
And unless Texas law is radically different from other Capital Punishment states, every one of those executed were allowed an attorney to argue their case (provided for free if they couldn't afford it)and years and years of appeals.
It's not like Bush was out there picking random criminals from jail and shooting them.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush's war on Iraq led to how many innocents being killed? The man couldn't wait to go to war.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bush's war on Iraq led to how many innocents being saved? Probably hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the first administration to advocate torture

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll assume that you're talking about rendition which was NOT introduced under Bush's watch but under CLINTON'S watch.

[ QUOTE ]
to lock up suspects without trials...

[/ QUOTE ]
Many of those locked up are beyond suspected of doing something wrong...

[ QUOTE ]
This completely contradicts his practice with the death penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong again. Those on death row have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty. And guilty of a heinous crime.

Re: Bush\'s response
 

My way of thinking is simple. The President of the United States is not a sovereign. He is an employee of the federal government with strictly delineated authority.

Re: Bush\'s response
 

Sorry Jaxmike, given your view of the 14th amendment how did she have any rights at all as against what Florida decided?

Re: Bush\'s response
 

Bush's war on Iraq led to how many innocents being killed?

This is absolutewly irrelevant to my point. The Constitution clearly defines one of the roles of the President to be comnmander-in-chief of the military, and the War Powers Act (regardless of my dislike for it) empowers the CIC to wage war without a declaraion of war from the Congress.

What the Constitution does not allow any President to do is overrule State courts.