posted 03-22-2005 07:21 PM         

Asserting State's Rights under the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights

WHEREAS, The 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"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"; and

WHEREAS, The 10th Amendment defines the total scope of 'federal power' as being that specifically granted by the United States Constitution and no more; and

WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the 10th Amendment means that the federal government was created by the "states" specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, Today, the "states" are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the United States Constitution.

This bill should not have been acted upon by Congress,,,should not have been voted and passed,,,should not have been signed into law by the President.

This is a state's rights issue, in this case Florida. As I said before, this case has traveled through 10 courts [now eleven] and before 18 judges [now to the 19th]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CJ:
Is this a caring husband that knows what's best for her??? From what I see, he didn't care enough to stay with her and support her.......he abandoned her. Let her parents take over her care.

....

---

I agree..... her parents brought her into this world.... and they should decide her fate.... starving your own child ? or worse yet watching someone else decide to do it...that ain't going to happen on my shift.

posted 03-22-2005 10:51 PM         

Second, they say he was a wife beater, was vicious, and wanted her dead. Where is the proof of that? Nobody can provide proof of that statement,,no one!

Next, many bring up the point about him living with another woman and having kids with her. SO WHAT!!! If at age 30 or 35, having seen your spouse in a veggie state for 5 to 10 years, and being told by countless doctors that your spouse is brain dead with no hope to recover,,,,,who wouldn't want to continue with their own life? I don't blame him for going forward in a new life, and I believe most other people would do so also.

Why didn't he divorce her? Michael says he loves her, but wants closure for her. He said that she didn't want to be kept alive if this type of situation ever happened to her. Who can prove he is a liar? Nobody!

Why didn't he walk away from the whole situation long ago? He is trying to provide the wishes of his wife,,,as she related them to him. He could have walked away from this matter long ago,,,,he didn't!! Michael Schiavo has proceeded with all of these court cases,,,,10 courts, 19 judges, many years of heartache, a boatload of doctor's opinions,,,,all coming to one conclusion - she isn't coming back to enjoy life as we know it. He has stayed with her,,,,,supporting her wishes about life, or lack of it!

Now place yourself in Terri Schiavo's bed,,,looking up at the ceiling, looking up at and into the abyss,,,,what would she want now after 15 years of no real life?
The videos show smiles and following the balloons around her head - the media forgot to tell you that was just a few moments////seconds, of the entire 4 hour video of her laying there in a meaningless state of life. She is brain dead,,,her brain is turning to liquid. We have no reason to argue with the conclusions of the "many specialist doctors" who have completely examined Terri Schiavo,,,,,,they don't perform miracles!

posted 03-23-2005 08:13 AM         

It is basic human instinct to sustain life, but at what cost to the individual.

posted 03-23-2005 08:36 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim C:
There is no plug to be pulled, She is not on life support they removed the feeding tube. this only means horrible pain from being starved to death. Nice to know we can euthenics our sick and dying pets painlessly with an injection and to the same with our death row prisoners hear in California, but yet We cannot relieve the pain of our loved ones.let alone the hospital bills poring in to the family.

---

Jim - my error in using the generic term "pull the plug". I think most understood what I meant = feeding tube.
I've heard three experts on the subject of starving to death while being brain dead. They state there isn't any associated pain in this process. I agree, I would prefer they use lethal injection to finish it fast. Only costs now involved is to feed her daily,,,paid by Florida state aid. The hospice provides the room for her at NO COST.

posted 03-23-2005 04:48 PM         

The medical reality is that there is no hope of recovery - brain tissue does not regenerate, and there is uncontroverted medical evidence (not opinion) that her brain is so severely physically damaged that there is no improvement is possible.

However, up to the point of death, these patients display involuntary movements and actions that, to a desparately hopeful family, seem to show some level of consciousness. In fact, studies have proven that these involuntary movements and sounds are just that - the mis-firings of a destroyed brain.

I can't imagine wanting one of my loved ones to exist in that state, but I do not think that removing the feeding tube is a particularly advanced or sensitive way to deal with the problem.

We humanely put down pets when there case is hopeless, but we do not have a method of dealing with this type of situation with people....

The real problem is that medical advances have far exceeded our ethical and moral advances, and we have the technological ability to preserve "life" when we really don't have much of a plan thereafter for how to deal with the person as a human being, rather than a patient.

posted 03-24-2005 07:33 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by blubyu:
Maybe Terri is alive and trapped inside her body. What is she thinking and what would she say to us if she could talk. How about "he was choking me" or "he has tried to kill me while I was bedridden." Is she saying "please let me live and have may family love and care for me."

---

This thought had occured to me and I believe to be that way for so long would drive a person to madness anyhow. I certainly wouldn't want to go through that.

Also the mention of the husband getting rich if she dies? He stated on national TV that there was no money to be had if/when she dies. I would also think any hospital bills would far outweigh any insurance policy.

posted 03-24-2005 10:12 PM         

Living Will,,,,,,,copy, print, and fill in the blanks.

Do it soon!

Thanks

posted 03-25-2005 09:53 PM         

Here are the results from this thread's posts:

A. 7 said to let her live

B. 24 said to let her go in peace

C. 3 seemed undecided or uncommitted

Nobody is right or wrong with their opinions stated here. Its how you felt and believe,,,and I appreciate your input.

posted 03-25-2005 11:50 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by CJ:
I'm not going to comment on the government intervention, because I'm not sure how I feel about that. However, based on some of the things I've heard and read (and who do you believe?)........

1. If her husband did not want to deal with her....why did he not divorce her and let her parents take over her care? He has been living with a woman for 10 years and has two children with her. Is this a caring husband that knows what's best for her??? From what I see, he didn't care enough to stay with her and support her.......he abandoned her. Let her parents take over her care.

2. Then there is the "settlement of over $1 million that he stands to gain.........but not if he divorces her...only if she dies?

3. He's been offered millions to give up his rights to her care......I read that over the years, he has refused to pay for care that may have improved her situation. Why? He wanted her to die?

4. He says that she said she didn't want to be kept alive. Does anyone really know that for fact? We are all saying that if something like that happened to us, we wouldn't want to be....but what if it really did? Would we change our minds, but not be able to communicate that? What if she never said that?

5. I would say that anyone who has specific requests regarding their care should they be incapacitated, better put it in writing.

6. This isn't like being on a respirator, with no hope of being able to breathe without it. My brother (at the age of 37) was on a respirator and after doing everything they could, it was determined there were no options left. The family had to make the decision and believe me.......it was not an easy decision. He passed away within the hour.

Terri is not on a respirator........she is being fed because she can't do that on her own. Could you make the decision to let your wife, daughter, sister literally starve to death?

Obviously, a very controversial issue.....

---

Sorry I generally missed this thread while I was in Florida getting all the media spin on the subject.

Originally I didn't have a real opinion but the more research I did, the more I have to agree with CJ. Generally a specific request to "pull the pull" I doubt I wouldn't have a big problem with (although generally not in favor personally). But this case isn't about that.

The parents are clearly in a no conflict position.

The husband has abandoned her and if he was truly looking out for what SHE wanted, he wouldn't be living with, and bearing children with another woman. Is that what she would have wanted too. Hardly

No one knows for sure what Terri wanted. But we do know there are people who want her - and that's not her husband.
Why is he so insistant on her dying?
Why has he never tried to re-habilitate her?

There is also some possibility from court documents that the husband may have inflicted the injuries causing this condition on her. The judges say this is an irrelevant fact. Maybe in legal terms, but use some common sense.

Should the government get involved. Generally, maybe not, but in this case - absolutely. The case has generally only been heard by one judge not the 20 the media suggest. The other judges are only commenting on another judges ruling. Should ONE judge have more authority than congress. Absolutely not. A judge is not even an elected official. At least if politicians step out of line, you get to toss them out in a few years. Rogue judges you are stuck with. The US has so many legal problems because of judges with way too much power and zero accountability.

This isn't a case about the right to die as many people think. This isn't about politicians stepping into personal lives. This is a case where there is sufficient legal doubt as to the facts and therefore the only logical outcome would be to gather all facts before putting someone to death.
The only fact that the judges have ruled on was "did she wish to be kept alive". And that wasn't a case based on documented facts but on her husbands say-so and his relatives. They haven't considerd that he may have inflicted this, they haven't considered at all who is best to look after her, they haven't fully considered her true physical state, etc, etc, etc.