Schiavo

[sombrefan]

Does anyone else feel weirded out or disturbed by the actions of the politicians in the right to die case? Surely it is a decision for the courts.

Comments

[leoff.livejournal.com]

Somewhere in the US constitution there's some amendment or clause that states that congress shall make no law that affects one individual. That's exactly what they're doing now, so basically it's unconstitutional.

technically yes,

[swersfreakshow.livejournal.com]

but won't it set a precedent for future such cases?

I'll go farther than that.

[ruby2andor.livejournal.com]

It is essentially a private matter for the family and their doctors. The only reason the lawyers and courts are in it is because the parents and the husband cannot agree. Definitely the politicians have no business in it.

Re: technically yes,

[leoff.livejournal.com]

I know what you are saying, but no, it won't.

This bill is somewhat generic, but it's being crammed through congress due to Schiavo's case, no other reason. Regardless of the outcome of Terri's life in the future, this bill will probably be ruled unconstitutional.

*raises hand*

[frances-lievens.livejournal.com]

The decision to stop a life lengthening therapy is a personal decision. The case is hijacked by opposing movements because the parents and the husband cannot agree and have opposing views about what life is. If there wasn't such an argument between parents and husband they would've taken out the feeding tube or leave it in and no-one would've talked about it.

[grnarmadillo.livejournal.com]

Sad but true, I think you'll find that most politicians in this country, if answering truthfully, will well you it's a job for the Courts as long as said agree with their own views.

[grnarmadillo.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily. The top google hit (e.g. here) says that what you're thinking of is more along the lines of Congress enforcing a specific punishment on someone without the benefit of a trial. In this case all they've done is specificially give jurisdiction over her case to a Federal Court without specifying how that court must find, though you can imagine the appeals that will otherwise ensue. (Federal Court jurisdiction is defined by Congress - without a law saying otherwise, the default presumption is that Federal Courts can't intervene.) Of course, you're correct that this is probably close enough that there will be a constitutional challenge to it, which will drag out this mess even longer than it is now.

From the CNN site :

[iidoru.livejournal.com]

TOOBIN (their legal expert) says "...there's actually even a provision in the Constitution called a bill of attainder. And what that means is under the Constitution, the Congress is not allowed to pass a law directed at a specific person. That was dealt with in the American Revolution because the British Parliament had, you know, passed laws saying John Adams, for example, is a criminal. Under our Constitution, we can't make laws about specific people. So, that would be an issue in the challenge to this law, if it became effect."

Actually, that's not exactly true

[kuzibah.livejournal.com]

According to this article: http://slate.msn.com/id/2115064/

Can Congress pass a law that applies only to specific, named individuals?

Yes it can, provided the law doesn't penalize or punish a single person or group. A piece of legislation that punishes (my italics) someone without a trial is called a "bill of attainder," which is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution. Terri's husband Michael could have challenged a federal law that addressed only the Schiavo case, by arguing that it penalized him without a trial. He could also have challenged the Senate's proposed law on the grounds that Congress was flouting the separation of powers (by choosing to overturn a specific judicial decision), or that the new law inappropriately granted Schiavo's parents the right to pursue their claims in federal court.

Re: From the CNN site :

[grnarmadillo.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, this looks like one of those cases where reasonable legal theorists can disagree (see also Kuzibah's reply below). I think the bottom line is that these legal waters are murky enough that the case will probably have to climb the judicial food chain to the Supreme Court (if only for them to decline to hear the case, effectively upholding whatever ruling stands at the time).