Feeding Tubes
Although my personal belief is that the only feeding tubes that should be removed belong to Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, there is a troubling aspect of this entire debate that has not seen print here. I read the Peggy Noonan article that was posted by CIV, but I can't get behind pushing our Federal Government to get involved in this.
Just as I think that Roe v. Wade was a wrong headed usurping of Federal Power, so do I think that this debate is one that must be decided, right or wrong, by the State of Florida. If Conservatives want to rail against Federal intrusion, then there must be consistancy in the argument. As we say in the law biz, bad cases make bad law. Abortion, medical marijuana, gay marriage, euthanasia. . huge emotional issues, but just as I don't want Boxer (Babs II), Kennedy, Biden or Byrd to be making these decisions for me, neither do I want Tom DeLay to be making them. These decisions are to be made by the State Legislatures and Courts, in my humble opinion.
Just as I think that Roe v. Wade was a wrong headed usurping of Federal Power, so do I think that this debate is one that must be decided, right or wrong, by the State of Florida. If Conservatives want to rail against Federal intrusion, then there must be consistancy in the argument. As we say in the law biz, bad cases make bad law. Abortion, medical marijuana, gay marriage, euthanasia. . huge emotional issues, but just as I don't want Boxer (Babs II), Kennedy, Biden or Byrd to be making these decisions for me, neither do I want Tom DeLay to be making them. These decisions are to be made by the State Legislatures and Courts, in my humble opinion.
posted by stewdog | 8:14 PM | Permalink
|
7 comments
7 Comments:
I'm a big proponent of state's rights but when a state abandons its foremost duty of protecting the life of its citizens (or in this case intentionally ordering the death of one), then I have no problem with the federal government stepping in. Our 8th Amendment protects criminals from cruel and unusual punishment. Surely our federal Bill of Rights affords Terri Schiavo (a law abiding citizen) the same protection against state sanctioned starvation.
But last week, you were railing against the Supreme Court's overreaching by "protecting the life of States' citizens" by telling States that they can't execute criminals whose acts occurred when they were unde 18. Now you want the Federal Government to intervene to tell the states that they can't allow this. I just want to see a little consistency, my friend.
Stewdog, see the article by Andrew McCarthy that I posted above. It addresses some of your concerns.
I don't think Wonderdog or other conservatives would argue that the Supreme Court didn't have the right to hear the case on the constitutionality of the juvenile death penalty in the first place (the objection, even among some opponents of the death penalty, was to their poorly reasoned decision).
As has already been pointed out, the worst criminals on death row are already entitled to federal review of their cases. Why shouldn't an innocent disabled woman be afforded the same consideration before the state of Florida starves her to death?
Stewdog, you need a flea dip.
I railed against that decision primarily because of its reliance on foreign authority in reaching its decision. I don't recall touching upon the merits of the death penalty issue itself at all, much less remark about federal intervention.
Now, either put down the crack pipe or increase the dosage.
I thought my comments might stir up some responses from those to the south and east of me. I've haven't used the crack pipe for at least a year. . I think.
OK, you are all right and I am just a confused dog. . So let's just erase all the state borders and create the United STATE of America. We have seen the usurption of power by the Feds over the States over the years, with some pull back by Scalia and company, but when Conservatives clamor for federal intervention in this issue, it just puts another nail in the coffin of States' rights. You can always make an arugmemnt on any issue that the Feds have jurisdiction over the States. But that is usually seen from the left and opposed by the right.
I agree with Stewdog. Conservatives have to stay consistent and not go running to the federal government just when it serves their purpose. It's a bit hypocritical.
Any conservative who believes in the principle of "State's Rights" as an absolute should find the nearest time machine and fly away to the old Confederacy. Conservatives generally want to limit the power of the federal government to intervene in the states, but that does not mean that conservatives, on EVERY issue, must take the "state's rights" position -- any more than liberals are required by consistency always to support federal intervention. I don't think you would be clamoring for state's rights if California decided to start a forced sterilization and/or detention of Republicans program.
Some conservatives argue that this is an issue in which federal oversight is necessary. If one wants to argue the opposite, that's fine, but simply rolling out the banner of state's rights is not an argument.
Post a Comment
<< Home