Terri Shiavo, R.I.P.

Terri Shiavo has died. Thus ends the motivation for the mind and heart-wrenching division that has needlessly taken the last month of our lives.

I don't think it's important what happens to the corpse of Terri Shiavo, whether she's buried or cremated, whether she's autopsied or not, whether one of churches involved canonizes her or not (it's been suggested).

I do care that the action by the government to write a "private bill" to interrupt the Florida legal process and by the POTUS to sign that bill never gets repeated, and what's more, it would be wise of the Congressional leaders and the President to so assure us, in writing. If they don't, I think we could expect more of the same in the future.

This controversy has launched intense debate on the role of the Judiciary vs. the other two branches. Good. Such discussion is always worth having, and then writing about later so it makes it's way into history. For myself, I would like to see a poll of jurists, then a separate one of lawyers, on this subject: Did the judiciary handle the case of Terri Shiavo properly, and are their rendered judgments a good model for future cases? I have an idea the the judiciary would nearly-unanimously answer the first part "Yes", and the second part only slightly less affirmatively. I believe that the results of such a poll would cut across the party affiliations of the jurists.

For Joe Sixpack, there will be hope to let the controversy be relegated to the history books. Joe has that hope because the MSM over-hyped this controversy badly. The MSM probably created enough stir about this case to have made Congress think that it was worth dealing with at the risk of the Constitution itself. I'm not making any excuses for the inexcusable action of Congress and the President, I just think that whipping up public sentiment on an issue that was one of an application of lofty legal principles, but also baser political aspirations, was wrong.

As to Right to Life, and it's assorted allies in this attempt to subvert the Constitution, I tell you that you failed. You failed this time because of the Judiciary, and it's excellent protective instincts for the Constitution. If you try this putsch again, you will fail again, but that's because you will all be wearing Toe Tags, and dead men not only tell no tales, but they don't preach very well either. If you contemplate a next time, your next support won't be the Congress or the POTUS, it will be a lamppost. We have the rope ready.

For the Right Wing, particularly Right Wing Bloggers, there needs to be some introspection here. Us rightys need to evaluate what our order of priorities is, again. If that order of priorities does not have at it's very top the protection of the Constitution, it should have. If it instead has Christian principles at the top, then those individuals, especially those who are elected officials, need to re-evaluate their citizenship.

A citizen of this nation has the absolute, unmovable duty to protect our Constitutional way of life. That duty comes before self, before ones religion and especially before ones emotion (which should never run ones life anyway). Without this collective purpose of protecting the very basis of our way of life, that way of life is open to attack.

This particular attack came from religious fanatics who put their God before their Constitution. They carried only bibles and political favors to be dispensed and collected. What would have happened if the attackers of the Constitution had carried a steelier resolve and Kalashnikovs? Would the same folk who allowed or encouraged this attack on the Constitution because it was led by Men of the Cloth have the spine to reject a tougher assault by force of arms?

Put that last question of mine on your shaving or make-up mirrors, my friends, and ask it of yourself every day for a while. If the answer is anything but a resounding "yes, and I would gladly give MY life to save the Constitution and it's principles", you might consider some personal re-education in those principles. If that re-education doesn't convince you to change your priorities, then I say, in all sincerity, God help you. You'll need His help because you are incapable of helping yourself or your nation.

Comments

[Jason]

"...because of the Judiciary, and it's excellent protective instincts for the Constitution."

You sure this statement shouldn't have been posted on April 1st, "Fool's Day"?

Is this the same Judiciary that says the 2nd Amendment isn't meant for the little folks, that your house can be taken by government and sold to other citizen's by way of "eminent domain." The same Judiciary that has now ruled you don't have the right to remain silent, (your papers please?) Better yet, "campaign reform" laws, better known as "silence the NRA at election time" laws, also ruled Constitutional.

Our Judiciary, specifically the SCOTUS, (which all other courts are forced to abided by), has not stood for the Constitution in over 100 years... Remember the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." With the vast array of Federal agencies, try telling me the Judiciary has stood for the Constitution when these powers were never delegated to Big Brother. Yet, SCOTUS rules them Constitutional...

The only thing the Judiciary is protecting is itself.

[Rivrdog]

I'll admit that the Judiciary hasn't been the friend of the Constitution much in the last 70 or 80 years. That said, don't you think it's encouraging that for once, they had the correct protective instinct, and actually made some protective judgments for the Constitution?

This one case doesn't make up for all the attacks on the 2A, the idiotic trend of product liability laws and lawsuits, etc, etc, but it's a start. We now know that the Judiciary CAN protect the Constitution.

And what's this with the ReligioRight basically just grumbling at the rest of the judges who refused to install religion into the Constitution, but now they want to IMPEACH Judge Birch, supposedly because he was appointed as a conservative and now BETRAYS his conservative buddies? GMAFB, how shallow is THAT?

As I pointed out in my last Shiavo post, I'll debate on the Founder's intent to have Judeo-Christian morality in the MEN who ran the country (they did so intend), and I'll debate on how the practice of religion fits into our Constitutional society (hint: writing Private Bills to instill a religious tenet DOESN'T FIT), but for me, there's no debate on the Constitutionality of any religion, religious thought or pieces of religious dogma. It isn't now, never has been, never will be.

You can call it whatever you want Jason, but Right To Life issues such as whether a 2-cell zygote is a human being, or whether human life must be supported, dispite pain and suffering or value of that life, until "God" extinguishes that life do not, can not and will not belong as encoded law under our Constitution.

Some conservatives seem to think that if they don't take an entire religion, from front to back, encode and install it as Law, they haven't violated the Constitution. I say bullshit. This is exactly the mechanism that the libs use to attack the 2A. If a single IDEA, by itself, is identifiable as a religious tenet, and stands as such when examined etymologically, then it doesn't belong in our LAW. We support the Second Amendment "en bloc", as written. Why can't we support Separation of Powers and the Establishment clause the same way?

Thanks for caring enough to comment civilly, though.

[Jason]

I almost "always" comment civilly.

I am not much concern with the courts ordering Terri to die. In their unquestionable decision they found that she had wanted to die, (and court decisions are never wrong... only court procedures are appealed). As it is, that is the judicial system we are stuck with and have been stuck with for decades, no change there.

I am also not much concerned with the religious right getting the GOP to ask the Federal courts to look into the case. Which I considered a minor error only on a political level. Congress had the power to ask the Federal Judiciary to look into the case, they did and didn't see any errors in court procedures, (they did not rule what Congress did specifically as unconstitutional). Except for the bill the state Congress in Florida passed on the matter, which was ruled unconsitutional.

You still seem to boldly assume that the Judiciary was standing up for the Constitution in the matter. Your quote;

"We now know that the Judiciary CAN protect the
Constitution."

I would claim that that was not their intentions. It was only a side benefit in this one situation. The decisions they made were based on insuring they continue to have unquestionable powers in factual judgements, and continue to have the power to control the direction this country takes in areas that were never directed for them to even decide, as based upon the Constitution. It is a power game and they will fight to insure they keep the power over the Legs and Exec Branches. If it benefits them to claim the Constitution says so, then they will base decisions on that when it suits their continued efforts to keep power. If they must cite foreign country policies in their attempts to keep that power they will do that too, (such as the recent ruling that death sentences to teenagers are unconstitutional).

It goes on and on.