|
|
|
|
#1
03-31-2005, 01:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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? 
|
|
#2
03-31-2005, 02:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#3
03-31-2005, 04:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#4
03-31-2005, 06:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#5
03-31-2005, 04:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#8
03-31-2005, 07:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 ] Well put.
|
|
#9
04-01-2005, 12:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bingo !!!
Bush overstep his bounds....he did all he could and more than he legally should have..
|
|
#10
03-31-2005, 03:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
