Well, I turned once too often and woke up at 5:45 a.m. Hit the radio button after my morning prayer and was listening to a re-broadcast of Michael Savage on AM1280 The Patriot. After my morning Bible reading and meditation, I turned on The Patriot in the living room and heard Savage talk about Terry Schiavo. He was talking about a link from his website to the Thomas More website. Here is the link: http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/Thomasmorelawcenter.pdf .
It's a very quick read.
Notice the date. Now, even though I went to government schools (and never, ever called a teacher by their fist name...at least not to their face), I went and was one of the last classes that graduated before the Frankfurt School took over the curriculum. Therefore, I was taught, and learned good basic skills, including basic math (as I tell my Sunday Schoolers and BSF kids: never confuse being taught the lesson with learning the lesson. Not the same thing). Well, if I do the math correctly, Governor Bush has had knowledge of the legal precedent to protect Terry Schiavo for nearly a year and a half. (BTW, yesterday I sent an email to Governor Bush encouraging him to take action, moral action, to save Terry Schiavo).
Well, it appears that Governor Bush is doing a lot of cosmetic hand wringing. This is the near equivalent of crocodile tears. As I read, the big problem was that Gov. Bush went to Judge Greer to petition (aka beg and plead for permission from his holiness Greer) for custody for protection of Terry Schiavo in a potential criminal case. Big mistake! Asking Greer for permission? Greer?!?! Am I drinking too much coffee? Or not enough? Greer for permission? If I were the Guv, I'd drop off a letter at his worshipfulness' Greer's office saying "Dear Morte Engel; By the time you read this we've already picked up Terry Schiavo and placed her in protective custody as outlined, allowed and countenanced by and in Florida State statutes. Hope all is well. Signed "The Guv". P.S. BTW, according to those same statutes, we're sizing up an orange jumpsuit for you. Bring your own accessories and be sure to bring soap-on-a-rope...for your own protection. If you know what I mean." Crimeny Jeb! Yah don't ask for permission. And certainly not from this guy. He won't even give an order for protection to a woman who pleaded with him. And she ended up dead (http://www.yaf.org/speakers/op-ed/coulter_schiavo.html) At least act like the head of an equal branch of government! The dropped off letter would be courtesy enough. More than enough.
Yikes a ‘mighty Jeb. If the press accounts are accurate, and you've told your people to scour the statutes for a way to save Terry, and you've had the information from the Thomas More Center, I can not believe that there is not a way for you to swoop in and drop of the letter to Morte Engel. Come on! The luncheon special is a full testosterone sandwich and a bowl of cohone soup! Eat hearty! It's why you were elected...I'd like to think.
Oh...yah, Congressional subpoenas. I was thinking, whatever happened to those Congressional subpoenas anyhow? Remember those? Ordered to appear before Congress on 25 March, 2005 if I remember correctly.HHhhhhhh.....And what happens if one refuses a Congressional subpoena? Golly, ask Sammy Sosa, Mark McQwire, Jose' Conseco. So, that being said, what happened when the subpoenas were served? Greer said 'unplug 'er anyhow! A pox on the D.C. domeboys. A pox, I say!' And where's Congress now? Mulling over McQwire's refusal to testify in a satisfying way? Offending Congress in their attempts to stamp out the use of juice in MLB? Offended indeed! And rightfully so. My lands, just ask Henry Waxman of the House Government Reform Committee. His statement to the Committee regarding the use of juice (my lands, people are dying. DYING! Just read it and his concern for the potential deaths that so concern him):
http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/story.asp?ID=81
Now, for comic relief and gross, and I mean gross, duplicity and hypocrisy, please contrast the previous statement with this statement from the honorable...wait a minute, from just plain Rep. Waxman regarding how he feels about Congressional subpoenas to Terry Schiavo:
http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050318131048-49286.pdf
Also please notice that the two statements are one day apart. I wonder when between St. Patrick's Day and St. Cyril of Jerusalem's Day he tripped over or suddenly discovered Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution? Oh well. I'm looking forward to talking to my socialist buddy that I sail with and discuss the two positions of H. Waxman and the Congress. He'll fume and accuse me of abandoning federalism. And with great relish, I'll remind him a conversation we had about 5 years ago regarding the Constitution, and tell him "Welcome to Living Document Land!"
Last night, as I was fighting, and kind of winning, the format and editing battle for my first blog entry, I watched a brief portion of "Animal Precinct" on Animal Planet. The New York ASPCA officers were breaking into an apartment they had visited a few days before. The owner of 2 cats and 2 dogs promised to care for and bring his pets up to speed. He didn't and abandoned the animals. No food, no water for the cats. The dogs could at least get to a toilet bowl where the lid was up. But the water had run out there also. The dogs and cats were so hungry they were eating their own feces. The animals were removed and examined by the New York ASPCA vet. What impressed me was that there were many pictures taken for evidence. And at least twice the comment was made that the officers were going to make the case to bring felony charges (charges plural you'll notice) against the owner. The lead officer was making a felony case against this man (the pet’s owner) to have him charged, arrested, brought to trial, pay a fine and serve jail time for starving his animals. Arrest him for denying food and water to his animals. And yesterday the posted photographs of police officers arresting young men for trying to bring water to a defenseless woman who was literally dying of thirst. Arrested for denying water to animals. Arrested for bringing water to a defenseless and dying woman. Breaking into a facility to rescue starving and dehydrated animals. Preventing, by armed force, people from rescuing a dying woman. Matthew 10:29-31... not in Florida. I have absolutely NO desire to be on the losing side of an argument with the Judge of the World.
And so what on earth does this blog heading have to with the content? Years ago I joined a fraternity. Went through my pledge quarter, and at the start of winter quarter faced "Help Week". Replaced an "L" with a "p" from a previous time. Well, into Help Week, a fraternity active took over the pledge line questioning. And Tony went up the line. 11 of us, arranged by height, me being second tallest. Tony's question to each of us was "How many push-ups are you willing to do for ATO?" He started with the short end of the line. "Sir, I’d do 10 push-ups for ATO, Sir." "Sir, I'd do 20 push-ups for ATO, Sir." And so it went. Tony told each of them, after each of their pronouncements, to do their voluntary push-ups. Nine guys to my right huffing , puffing, sweating, groaning and collapsing for ATO. Tony came to me. "How many pushups would you do for ATO?" Looking straight ahead, I replied "Sir, I'd do 1,000,000 pushups for ATO, Sir!" Tony stopped, looked at me. With a very slight smile and a sideways glance said "You're good! Sit down." As pledge wienies we were NOT allowed to sit down in front of any active member. But, I had permission. Tony went on to say, with a small head nod "You're real good."
There was no way I was going to do a million pushups, even though I was a U of M varsity athlete and letterman. But boy, it sure did sound good that I'd do a million pushups for ATO. Sounded REAL good! But just, and only sounded good.
And it appears that our elected officials are willing to do at least 1,000,000 pushups for Terry Schiavo. They started with 20. When are we are going to see the remaining 999,980? Terry can't wait.
1:16 p.m.- Seems the Northern Alliance Radio Network (NARN) disagrees with me, somewhat. They take the position that sending in the troops on behalf of how the Governor sees the law and his responsibility under it is the makings of tyranny. Seems they draw a parallel between doing that and Hitler and the Reichstag being burned. They say that Hitler declared an emergency and sent in the Brown Shirts. They're right. As a student of WWII, I agree that's what he did to consolidate power from being a coalition Chancellor to becoming Fuhrer. Just one problem with the comparision: Hitler was not challenging another branch of government with an opposing interpretation of law. NARN's position is that we go out and elect representatives to fight tyranny, in this case the tyranny of the judiciary. Greer has flipped off the Florida State Legislature and the Governor when a law was passed and signed. U.S. District Judge James Whitmore flipped off the Congress and President when he refused to move on the bill passed last weekend. So, what is the executive branch of the government to do when they and the judiciary see a law quite differently? When the executive branch goes back to the legislative branch to get it correct so the judiciary finally says "OK"? And never says OK?
The originator of Savage Republicans and I just had a talk where he took me through what happened in Texas. The courts kept saying no when the people had voted for, the legislature passed and governor signed an education funding bill. And one federal judge said "Nah. Don't like it." How many times have the judges in California overturned initiatives that passed by a wide margin? Don't get me wrong. Initiative is basically a democratic form of government, which I don't favor. But it is way of taking back government. But, it is a democracy. And remember, as I heard before, a lynching and a gang rape are both examples of a democracy. We live in a democratically elected, constitutionally mandated representative republic. A lot longer than saying democracy, but very important that we say it and know the difference. Or at least say "republic" not "democracy".But, the reason that we're having this conflict is because we haven't had the rule of law (the Constitution) and a republic,but the law of men."What kind of government have you given us, Dr. Franklin?" "A republic madam...if you can keep it." R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, Madam Secretary, Senator Clinton (or Rodham Clinton,or...), et al. Republic. Thank you. I'm better now...for now.
I hear the NARN lament the situation with Terry Schiavo. And at least five times repeat "rule of law". OK. Rule of law as determined by...??? I keep hearing that we're a nation of rule of law, not rule by men. Explain that to Greer and Whitmore. At the point that the judiciary says what the law is, well, at that point aren't we under the rule of men?
And this just in: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43508
So, if I read the article correctly, the armed enforcers of the chief law enforcement officer of the state of Florida called the enforcement officers of the district court (sheriffs are ususally the court's enforcement officers and the law enforcement officers of unincorporated cities) to warn the local boys that the Florida state boys were on their way:"The Miami Herald says a team of Florida Department of Law Enforcement agents was on its way to seize the woman, but "stopped short" when told that local police officers would enforce a judge's order against removing her. " The conflict was on. But the locals warned the state officers of trouble. What kind of enforcement of the judge's order do you think? What if Gary Anderson made that field goal in 1999? Conjecture... ain't it grand? Seems that the FDLE was on its way to prove the NARN wrong. Though a division of the state boys says they weren't.So, there you are. What's next?
3:50 p.m.- And the intrigue deepens:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2270&ncid=2270&e=1&u=/krwashbureau/20050326/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_braindamagedwoman_seize_exclusive_wa
I thought there was a section in Federalist 45 about the courts. But I went to look in Federalist 78 (http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=22&ITEM_ID=56
"Anyone who studies the different departments of government must see that, when they are constitutionally separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution because it will have the least capacity to annoy and injure them." Well then, Publius, may I politely ask WHAT HAPPENED? I suspect Marbury vs. Madison. What I also find interesting is the very next sentence "The executive not only dispenses honors but also holds the community's sword." "The judiciary, however, has no influence over either the sword or the purse"(referring to a previous reference to the legislative branch)."The judiciary may be said to have neither force nor will, merely judgment. It even depends on the aid of the executive arm for the efficacy of its judgments." Really...huh... And from Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:
"1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers;"(emphasis mine) "but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
3-29-05,12:36 p.m I've been thinking (an activity that some may claim, and I'd occasionally agree, can be infrequent, painful and potentially dangerous to innocent bystanders) about the started, then halted intervention by the head of the executive branch of the Florida state government (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43508) it occurred to me that with 160 years of laws, statutes and case law in Florida (admitted to the Union in 1845, 2005-1845=160...that basic math function from government school I'd talked about earlier) with 16 decades of laws, etc, that there is not one, even ONE law that can be twisted (oops, sorry) I mean creatively applied to take this woman into protective custody? If the Feds can take the RICO statute and prosecute Operation Rescue, there's a law in Florida that allows Jeb to act. There obviously was as evidenced by the by the FDLE being dispatched. However, there's a broader question here that I'm perplexed by: if you and I have a dispute, in a civilized manner we go to a mediator or arbitrator, usually the courts. If we dispute the government on any level, we seek resolution in the courts. Same for any government to government disputes. If the executive and legislative branches are in dispute, the recourse can be the courts. But, what of the situation where the executive and judiciary branches are in conflict? Where is the mediator between the two? According to Article 3 section 2, the Congress can slap the Supremes around (haven't seen that yet, but I'm awaiting for the time). But, what of the situation in Florida. It seems that Jeb thought he could make the case and sent the FDLE. Congress issued a subpoena. And seemingly Jeb and Congress both huffed and puffed...and exhaled slowly-once, not to inhale again.
Yet.
3-29-05 1:51pm Allen Keyes weighs in with some critical analysis with a perspective from the forest edge (so he can see more than just the trees) http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43536
