Sunday, March 20, 2005

In support of the Schiavo Legislation

The divisive nature of the Schiavo legislation is evident by our own blog's disagreement. It is enough to bring Tim back from the blogging hibernation. And I am sure that sooner or later, Craig will weigh in. And if anything, it's proof that we don't always need Rabbit (our most loyal reader) for disagreement on the blog. But we most certainly look forward to hearing his remarks.

First off, I want to commend Kris for articulating so well his support for the legislation just passed tonight.

I too support the Schiavo legislation for two reasons:

1) As Kris has already so eloquently stated, Congress does have jurisdiction over the judicary. What they did tonight was entirely legal. I expand upon this by quoting the following from Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

2) My friend Tim argues that the Republicans have forfeited logic for emotion. This issue is all about emotion. I doubt any avid follower of politics will not admit that the Republicans had to capitalize on this issue. The ramifications of this issue are huge, as Peggy Noonan has already expounded upon. If Republicans sat idly by, they would give up a victory to the pro-euthanasia (already pushing the PC envelope here)/pro-choice side . And that's a victory they can ill-afford.

Perhaps my own fellow conservatives and friends on the other side of the aisle will call me hypocritical if I do not uphold the states' rights mantra. I vehemently disagree. As Kris pointed out, the Florida state legislature had already passed legislation the Florida judiciary struck down as unconstitutional. The principle of the issue, which I think is larger than just Terri Schiavo, is upholding life. Simple as that.

It is an issue that transcends the invocation of states' rights, like the federal marriage amendment. When I hear congressmen yelling, "get out of my life" on the House floor and others cowardly hiding the pro-'death' clause behind the veil of states' rights, it sickens me. Let us not forget that it was the South who claimed states' rights and a 'leave us alone' sentiment on their path to secession.

To clarify, I want to remind every one that Congress simply expedited the appeals process to be heard at the federal level from the state court. No one in Congress is re-inserting the tube or shutting it off. I think we need to make that clear before the rest of this debate continues. The federal judge may not even rule in favor of the pro-life/Republican crowd. We can only hope that the federal judge makes a sound ruling.

And to conclude, I believe the President can make a compelling point to the nation that he needs sensible judges on the bench. I know the contentious rulings were made at the state level, but the President can make the case that the nation needs judges who can make sound decisions. It's a point worth considering.

...Read More!


Post a Comment

<< Home