[macintologist]

Many conservatives here are saying that the 5th and 14th amendment grant us the right to life, and forces the gov't to preserve life at all costs. This is the argument they use to justify congress intervening in the Terry Schiavo case.

BULLSH*T

This is bullsh*t "living-breathing constitution" doctrine.

5th Amendment
No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

14th Amendment
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

"WITHOUT DUE PROCESS". That obviously doesn't mean jack sh|t to conservatives when their emotions get in the way of clear thinking and reason.

The government can incarcerate you, execute you, strip you of your property, liberty, whatever...AS LONG AS THERE IS DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

"Due process" is a procedural guarentee.

So please, conservatves, cut the "living breathing Constitution" bullsh*t and get back to reality.

Justice Scalia says it best:

What substantive due process is is quite simple � the Constitution has a Due Process Clause, which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Now, what does this guarantee? Does it guarantee life, liberty or property? No, indeed! All three can be taken away. You can be fined, you can be incarcerated, you can even be executed, but not without due process of law. It�s a procedural guarantee.

I really like Scalia. He doesn't let emotions and opinions get in the way of properly interpretating the constitution. That's something that both liberals and conservatives are guilty of.

Read his whole speech here: http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomli...nal-speech.htm

or watch the video here: rtsp://video.c-span.org/60days/ac031905.rm

[ThinkInsane]

What does this have to do with the dreaded "neocons"? Since this has become a national news story, I've heard both Democrats and Republicans argue both sides. It's really easy to draw everything as an 'us vs. them', but people can have feelings, strong feelings, on this issue without the partisan politics.

[BoomStick]

Was Jessica Lunsford granted her constitutional rights of due process before her brutal execution?


Or was it merely a late term abortion because she wasn't old enough to vote liberal?


The insane left places absolutely no value on life unless that person is lock in step with their "cause", then they are priceless.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BoomStick:

The insane left places absolutely no value on life unless that person is lock in step with their "cause", then they are priceless.

Sadly, I think that's more true than most realize.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by BoomStick:

The insane left places absolutely no value on life unless that person is lock in step with their "cause", then they are priceless.

Oh brother.

...and in other news:

Democrats slam budget cuts for veterans' services
Pa. governor: Bush budget cuts for critical programs 'unconscionable'

(He) maintained that budget cuts include "a $350 million reduction in veterans home funding, which wipes out at least 5,000 veterans' nursing home beds."

"If the president's proposed budget cuts are enacted, nearly 60 percent of the 1,600 veterans will lose their daily stipend that allows them to stay in our state's nursing homes, literally forcing them out into the cold."

Vet co-payments for prescription drugs were tripled two years ago, Rendell said, and "now the president is proposing to again double those increased co-pays."

Demonize one side all you want, but it seems to me that it no matter what side of the aisle they sit on, politicians will use citizens to further their political ideology any chance they get.

[OldManMac]

Would somebody please explain why George Bush intervened in the Terri Schiavo case, when he signed a law in 1999, as governor, that allows hundreds, if not thousands, of people to have their food and water withheld if a spouse or family member agrees with the medical community that a person has no chance of recovery and is deemed in a vegetative state?

Never mind; I found the answer. It's called political expediency, with a touch of hypocrisy thrown in for good measure.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Would somebody please explain why George Bush intervened in the Terri Schiavo case...

Because an emergency session of Congress had presented him with a bill to sign. Presidents will do that sort of thing.

[TETENAL]

It's time for the neocons to confiscate all firearms. There is no reason for anybody who calls himself a Nazi to own a weapon.

[Joshua]

What?

[bubblewrap]

This kid had real problems. A ticking time bomb. The grandfather should have see that one coming and got rid of the guns.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Many conservatives here are saying that the 5th and 14th amendment grant us the right to life, and forces the gov't to preserve life at all costs.

Very few if any conservatives believe a piece of paper grants anyone a single right. Rights aren�t granted by other people or documents. Human rights are inalienable, and therefore only recognized (or not) by other people or documents.

"WITHOUT DUE PROCESS". That obviously doesn't mean jack sh|t to conservatives when their emotions get in the way of clear thinking and reason.

Due Process? Is Terry Schiavo a convicted and sentenced to death felon or something? Exactly what �due process� in this case automatically sentences her to death? Are you even aware that, strictly interpreted, due process means the OPPOSITE of what you�re blathering? Without it- (IE an actual trial) you CAN�T take Terry Schiavo�s life. Considering she�s not on trail or even accused of anything � let alone received any form of �due process� for such- it�s hardly an argument that says anyone automatically has to pull the plug.

By the way, since you�re suddenly blazing away completely off-target at conservatives with both misaligned barrels, as a general aside, I�d love to know how the more socialist minded liberals get around the second half of that 5th Amendment clause, IE: � nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.� That alone kills off most pie-in-the-sky �just take from the rich to pay for it� socialist wealth redistribution schemes. Only through �living, breathing� wrangling around this, can anyone justify this very thing being done in defiance of the constitution all the time.

"Due process" is a procedural guarentee.

In the way you are misusing this, a guarantee of what? Execution of a coma victim on demand?

So please, conservatves, cut the "living breathing Constitution" bullsh*t and get back to reality.

You�re laughably off-target with the whole �living breathing Constitution� thing, and just slinging terms around you obviously know nothing about. The term has nothing to do with this case, and often actually refers to more liberal judges who use the idea of a �living, breathing� constitution as a means to interpret into it �rights� that aren�t actually there, and see it as highly �malleable� per their whims.

Whereas conservatives more often tend toward the belief that the constitution means exactly what it says (and that what it says is NOT all that hard to decipher) , not open to willy-nilly misinterpretations, and can only be changed via actual amendments, not spur of the moment whim misreadings of its actual text.

Strictly speaking, it�s a far easier argument that the constitution PROTECTS the life of Terry Schiavo a lot more than it automatically grants anyone any authority to �pull the plug� on her, and certainly not, by your own non-argument, WITHOUT due process.

Justice Scalia says it best:

It�s bizarre that you�re quoting Scalia, while basically making some sort of (highly-stretched) substantive due process argument (in a case where true due process isn�t even a factor) while Scalia, a conservative, is an outspoken critic of substantive (as opposed to strict procedural) due process interpretations.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Because an emergency session of Congress had presented him with a bill to sign. Presidents will do that sort of thing.

The answer I expected, from someone who chooses to selectively quote.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by KarlG:
The answer I expected, from someone who chooses to selectively quote.

The rest of your quote had nothing to do with what the answer is, so deal with it.

Bush's duties last decade as a Governor do not, and should not, dictate how he performs as President of a nation. The fact is, he got involved because that what his job calls for.

[OldManMac]

So now a President who has been preaching that he's a champion of states' rights, is suddenly allowed to make an exception, just because he wants to? His job calls for him to be President of the United States, not as an arbiter in an issue that has been through numerous state courts, just because he suddenly sees some political points to be made. Even the federal judge who got the case saw no reason to change the rulings, but, sadly her delusional parents and their attorneys have already appealed. Deal with it.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by KarlG:
So now a President who has been preaching that he's a champion of states' rights, is suddenly allowed to make an exception, just because he wants to? His job calls for him to be President of the United States, not as an arbiter in an issue that has been through numerous state courts, just because he suddenly sees some political points to be made. Even the federal judge who got the case saw no reason to change the rulings, but, sadly her delusional parents and their attorneys have already appealed. Deal with it.

Actually, the federal judge pretty much stated that this case belongs in Appeals, and moved it there rather quickly.

Nowhere has Bush claimed to be an arbiter of any of this. Congress had the emergency session, passed the bill, then had it sitting on Bush's desk. He did his job. Deal with it.

Seems to me that the only ones who claim there are political points to be made are liberals. Conservatives that I know are not even thinking politically about this issue. Liberals on the other hand are once again caught rooting for death because they think they get political points out of it, ala Terry Schiavo, US Troops, Iraqi civilians...

The only ones they don't want to die are convicted murderers. We've got guys on death row for 20 years and counting, yet it's so important to them that Terry Schiavo die now.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by macintologist:
"WITHOUT DUE PROCESS". That obviously doesn't mean jack sh|t to conservatives when their emotions get in the way of clear thinking and reason.

no, it's actually the cornerstone of every fascist ideology. once you take away "due process" the abuse of power through brute force can begin.