This morning and afternoon,
some friends and I had a lengthy debate on Congressional and Judiciary power, individual rights, and states rights. Yes, it's the Terri Schiavo debate again.
I know I said I wanted to move on from this, but during the debate I did a small bit of research into the Constitution and found this seemingly obvious sentence.
Amendment 10: 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.
The last amendment that was included in the Bill of Rights, Amendment 10 simply defines State and Individual rights and choice.
What implications might this have on the issues we are facing today? Well, let's take what we've all been talking about recently (again...), the Terri Schiavo case. The dispute between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo has gone on for years, been heard by almost twenty different judges, and has been appealed to the US Supreme Court twice (and was declined both times). Ok, that's good. It's the definition of the judiciary to hear cases involving citizens. Since this case is between citizens of the same state, the case was heard in Florida first and then made its way to the federal level. Good, that's how it's supposed to work.
Now, you have the Florida legislature step in with 'Terri's Law'. The Florida Supreme Court unanimously declared the law unconstitutional, on several bases including violating Separation of Powers under the state constitution.
Like the U.S. Constitution, the Florida Constitution assigns legislative, executive, and judicial power to each branch. But, unlike the federal constitution, the Florida Constitution expressly prohibits members of one branch from exercising authority committed to another.
Pursuant to Article II, Section 3,
Branches of government. - The powers
of the state government shall be
divided into legislative, executive,
and judicial branches. No person
belonging to one branch shall
exercise any powers appertaining
to either of the other branches
unless expressly provided herein...
As a result, Florida's separation of powers mandates that "the courts possess the entire body of judicial power. The other departments cannot, as a general rule, properly assume to exercise any part of this power, nor can the constitutional courts be hampered or limited in the discharge of their functions by either of the other two branches.
Florida Supreme Court, Gov. Bush v. Schiavo, 9/23/2004
All attempts after this by Jeb Bush to have the case reheard failed due to the fact that he no longer had a case - his executive power under the Florida Constitution prevented it. An appeal was made in January to the US Supreme Court to challenge this decision, and was not granted.
Now the case gets unlimited national attention. In the past two weeks, as Congress approached its break for the Easter holiday, Republican congressmen and senators stoked the fires of their base and of the media, in some cases without presence of a quorum or with a significant number of legislators not present because they were asleep (and blocking out other current political topics, but that's a subject for another diary). Finally, they created a bill that would apply solely to this one, individual instance, S.686:
AN ACT
For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO.
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.
SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.
Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit
without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.
SEC. 3. RELIEF.
After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.
SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING.
Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.
SEC. 6. NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim related--
(1) to assisting suicide, or
(2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.
SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.
Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.
SEC. 8. NO AFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1990.
Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990.
SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.
It is the Sense of Congress that the 109th Congress should consider policies regarding the
status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions
concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care.
Ok, now how does this new act of Congress, that President Bush just had to fly back to DC and sign at 1:30 in the morning, have on you and I as individual citizens, and on the Constitution itself?
Well, it basically says that Terri's parents have the right to sue ANYONE who is involved with preventing their daughter with medical procedures that would extend her life in federal court. The District Court and 11th Circuit have now issued their opinions and nothing has changed, and the case stands to go before the Supreme Court once again. However, the question of the original constitutionality of S.686 is still up in the air.
If you test it against the Tenth Amendment, this law would be deemed unconstitutional, due tothe fact that Congress has no power based in the Constitution to order a Federal Court to issue an injunction - to do so would violate Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, Article III, Sections 1 and 2, as well as the Tenth Amendment.
What Congress is attempting to do is 'micro-manage' a single Unites States citizen's medical decisions, or those of the court-appointed legal guardian. The framers of the Constitution recognized this flaw in the original document, and like the other nine amendments before it the Tenth represents an essential stop to this kind of intrusion by the Federal Government into the lives of individual citizens rights, and those instances where the Constitution itself, as well as the governing documents of the States, are not clear enough to make a determination.
And the saddest part of all is that they claim to be doing it according to God's will. That is a violation of the First Amendment, but that is also a subject for a different diary.