|
Send to a friend
Printer Friendly PDF Format
Subscribe to FFF Email Update
Subscribe to Freedom Daily
Rule of Law Damaged by Schiavo Bill
by
Sheldon Richman,
March 23, 2005
The events surrounding the life of Terri Schiavo are
tragic enough. Now congressional Republicans and
President Bush have made things worse. In one weekend
they disabled federalism, the separation of powers, and
the rule of law. These principles were embraced by the
Founding Fathers because they tend to protect individual
liberty. By tearing them down, the Republican leadership
jeopardizes our freedom. How ironic that this comes at
the hands of the self-proclaimed party of limited
government.
It is beyond dispute that the legal issues involved in
the Schiavo case are state issues. That has been the rule
for more than 200 years. It is what has made the American
system a federal system. The point of federalism is to
decentralize power, and its rationale is that
concentrated power is dangerous always and
everywhere regardless of which political party
rules.
Years ago Terri Schiavo went into what many doctors
describe as a persistent vegetative state without hope of
recovery. She can breathe, but she cannot take food or
water on her own. Her husband has sought to remove the
feeding and hydration tubes in order, he says, to comply
with her express wish not to live this way. Her parents
have tried to block him from having the support
terminated. The Florida state courts have consistently
sided her husband. The U.S. Supreme Court earlier
declined to review the case because no constitutional
issues are involved.
Last weekend the Republican-controlled House and Senate hurriedly passed legislation permitting Terri Schiavo’s parents to request the federal courts to take a fresh look at the case — as if the state court had never ruled. President Bush signed the bill. The
case was heard Monday, but the judge refused an emergency
order to reinsert the tubes pending a full hearing. The federal court of appeals affirmed the judges order and the parents are appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Much could be said about this sad case. Terri Schiavo had
no living will directing that she not be sustained
artificially. We have only her husbands and a
couple of other peoples testimony, and he may have
a conflict of interest involving money earmarked for her
care. Others testified that she never expressed such a
desire. Yet a trial judge found clear and
convincing evidence that she did not wish to live
this way. Maybe the Florida law has defects, but
thats a subject for another day. My focus here is
on Congresss and the presidents intervention.
It was extraordinary and ominous. The bill singled out
one case in an area where federal authorities have no
constitutional jurisdiction. This makes no sense. At any
given time, many people are in medical conditions similar
to Terri Schiavos. In most of these cases, the
family members agree to end artificial respiration,
feeding, and hydration. No doubt in some cases there is
disagreement, but the matter is settled out of the news
headlines.
Will Congress now intervene in all these cases? If not,
why not? Arent those lives precious too? That the
Republicans intervened in this case, which has been taken
up by the anti-abortion lobby (among others), hints
that cynical political calculations were at work. A memo
circulated among Senate Republicans called the Schiavo
matter a great political issue, indicating
its appeal to the partys religious supporters. Is
this payback for 2004?
In the end, the bill probably wont prolong Terri
Schiavos life. But it may well cut short the rule
of law. It is no defense of the Republicans to say that a
young woman was being starved to death. Congress has no
constitutional authority to exercise arbitrary power any
time an emergency catches its attention, especially where
there are no federal or constitutional issues at stake.
That it is legally restrained from doing whatever it
wants is part of what we mean by the rule of law.
Thats why its weekend actions are ominous. We must
fear for the precedent it has set.
Both the president and members of Congress take oaths to
preserve and protect the Constitution. Any time they pass
and sign a law thinking they will leave the matter of its
constitutionality to the courts, they violate their
oaths. The American system has a division of powers,
which was violated in this case, but when it comes to
abiding by the Constitution, there is no division of
labor.
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation, author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine. Send him email.
|