Monday, March 21, 2005
I am pleased to announce, as probably everyone who doesn't live in a cave knows, that Congress approved Terri's law very late last night. I am impressed. The Republican Party is finally learning to govern. Those who know me well know that I am continually frustrated when the majority party, the Republican Party, continues to wring their hands, apologize, and act like a minority. Then again, I sometimes wish the Democrats would learn to act like a minority party and stop pretending they can dictate everything. But if the Republicans are fool enough to let them, we deserve what we get. As for the anti-Bush crowd's latest ploy, "51% is not mandate" I'd like to know what is. Certainly not the 47% Clinton got the first time around, or even the second time when he made it up to 49%. Bush won 51% and he won a majority in both Houses, something not even Clinton ever did, not that it mattered. Clinton governed like he had a mandate anyway.
Rants aside, something was raised last night that deserves serious consideration. Certain Democrats (who shall remain nameless, largely because I don't know their names) as well as certain lawyers opposed the bill because it would overturn "centuries of juris prudence". One aspect of this is that state courts are "being ignored" and the Federal government is intervening where it should not. I ignore this, largely for the reason that the Democrats are more than happy to ignore state laws if it suits their political purpose. So that's not a serious argument, it's just political maneuvering. The other issue raised though is that of the law of the land being "general", that is not applied to a single person. Here the Democrats are absolutely right. Laws are not supposed to be applied to one specific person and I wish that Terri's Law would have been written much more generally. But let us understand: time is of the essence. A deliberative body should, by nature, deliberate and unfortunately we just don't have time to argue about ins and outs while the woman is starving to death. But the deeper issue here is that the original Constitutional Order only applies itself in all its glory to a moral and upright people. This is something the Founders definitely believed in. John Jay commented, "America will be ruled by the Bible or by the bayonet." Something that echoes in the writings of all the Founders is that people must govern themselves or the government has to enforce morality from the outside. And this is true. If people cannot decipher for themselves what is right and wrong, then government must do it for them because that is the purpose of government. So, today, we see a man who was about to get away with murdering his helpless wife has been stopped by the decree of government. Do I think this the ideal way of doing things? No. I would have preferred Michael Schiavo to have been able to not do this on his own because he is a moral human being. This is clearly not being done and so now, the last resort, the government is being forced to do it.
If you're interested in pursuing this case further, and don't want to leave nasty messages for the poor people running it, hop over to The Common Room. The objections you can leave for me.
Rants aside, something was raised last night that deserves serious consideration. Certain Democrats (who shall remain nameless, largely because I don't know their names) as well as certain lawyers opposed the bill because it would overturn "centuries of juris prudence". One aspect of this is that state courts are "being ignored" and the Federal government is intervening where it should not. I ignore this, largely for the reason that the Democrats are more than happy to ignore state laws if it suits their political purpose. So that's not a serious argument, it's just political maneuvering. The other issue raised though is that of the law of the land being "general", that is not applied to a single person. Here the Democrats are absolutely right. Laws are not supposed to be applied to one specific person and I wish that Terri's Law would have been written much more generally. But let us understand: time is of the essence. A deliberative body should, by nature, deliberate and unfortunately we just don't have time to argue about ins and outs while the woman is starving to death. But the deeper issue here is that the original Constitutional Order only applies itself in all its glory to a moral and upright people. This is something the Founders definitely believed in. John Jay commented, "America will be ruled by the Bible or by the bayonet." Something that echoes in the writings of all the Founders is that people must govern themselves or the government has to enforce morality from the outside. And this is true. If people cannot decipher for themselves what is right and wrong, then government must do it for them because that is the purpose of government. So, today, we see a man who was about to get away with murdering his helpless wife has been stopped by the decree of government. Do I think this the ideal way of doing things? No. I would have preferred Michael Schiavo to have been able to not do this on his own because he is a moral human being. This is clearly not being done and so now, the last resort, the government is being forced to do it.
If you're interested in pursuing this case further, and don't want to leave nasty messages for the poor people running it, hop over to The Common Room. The objections you can leave for me.
// posted by The Pendragon @ 2:42 PM 
