Fortunately, it unintentionally set the precedent for doing "what we had to do."I
magine. A federal appeals court affirms a guardian's claim that he should retain custody of his ward. The ward is not competent to make decisions affecting his own welfare. The administration in Washington isn't content to follow the court's ruling on the matter. It instead sends in agents in a pre-dawn raid on Easter to take federal custody of the ward in order to "rescue" him from his "unreasonable" guardian's clutches and "
reunite" him with his loving parent so they would both have "
a chance to heal," stating that "we did what we had to do."
As Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz noted, it set the "precedent that the administration can act without court approval." That was the case of Elian Gonzalez five Easters ago.
It is only fitting then, coupled with a huge helping of poetic justice to boot, that another Gonzales—this time having the first name of Alberto—repeat that history this Easter, in order to enforce the rule of law and not of unmanly judges.
Federal law says Terri Schindler-Schiavo "shall" have a new trial of the facts in her case. (This law has not been declared unconstitutional.) The judicial branch is saying, "No way, not if we can help it." The courts are clearly violating that law. It is the President and our Attorney General's duty to enforce every federal law, no matter who or what may be violating it. With regard to protecting citizens from violations of their federal civil rights under color of law, the FBI's own Web site says,
- In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to utilize whatever force is "reasonably" necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast. The spectrum begins with the physical presence of the official through the utilization of deadly force. While some types of force used by law enforcement may be violent by their very nature, they may be considered "reasonable," based upon the circumstances.
The executive branch has power to protect our federal civil rights. It must act to protect Terri's now if her rights aren't to be violated by a few obstructionist federal judges.
I don't want to live under a system of judicial tyranny, where courts—not We the People™ through our duly elected representatives and the laws they pass—have the final word on everything.
President Bush, please preserve, protect and defend Terri's rights and our nation of laws. Before it's too late for everyone.
Update: Before saying, "I wouldn't want to live like that"—or the not so subtle alternative, "no one should have to live like that"—please read this. (
Dean's World)
Comments (registered users)
Post a Comment