All Schiavo, All the Time
There's a fantastic discussion going on in the comments to Tom's living will post below. Vandergirl gets the best of this one. The Constitution establishes limits on the powers of federal courts in Article III, Section 2. The Constitution establishes limits on the power of Congress to enact laws in Article I, Section 8. I don't see any provision of Article I, Section 8 that permits the interpretation of the Schiavo legislation -- that it directed the federal courts to act in a certain way -- being advanced by purported conservatives and a few disability rights advocates.
3 Comments:
Read Judge Whittemore ruling, specifically the "Jurisdiction and Standing" section.
As per Congressional action, the ability to ordain and establish courts in my mind inherently begets the right of jurisdictional authority. Congress did not overturn any state court rulings; they just asked they be heard in federal court irrespective of state court outcomes.
Does Article 3 explicitly say that Congress has the right to determine what cases the court can and cannot hear? No. But the language begets a resultant set of policies and procedures by which we manage the court system.
This can easily descend into a originalist versus living argument of which I have not much desire; I actually need to get some work done so I am going to try and abstain from prolonging the argument via some 'who gets the last word' contest.
Read the "jurisdiction and standing" section. Judge Whittemore doesn't decide whether the Congressional Act is constitutional. Indeed, he acknowledges that it may be a real problem -- "While there may be substantial issues concerning the constitutionality of the Act, for purposes of considering temporary injunctive relief, the Act is presumed to be constitutional. Benning v. Georgia, 391 F.3d 1299, 1303 (11th Cir.2004)." He didn't reach the issue because he didn't have to.
I won't comment on the rest -- aforementioned time-suck concerned are quite valid! But wanted to correct that misleading statement.
Also, Terry -- I think this is an interesting question (and a distracting one, obviously). But I wonder if it will ever be decided! Now that the Supreme Court has denied cert, I don't think anyone has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute. No one has been harmed -- since the only "harm" would have been if the fed courts had reversed the state court decision.
But what do you bet Congress does it again?
Post a Comment
<< Home