Will there be or should there be consequences to Congress and the president for violating the Constitution and intruding on a state issue for one person?

If you believe there should be consequences, what should they be?

Aside from the consequences faced by pro-life Republicans, I'd like to see whomever wrote and circulated the alleged "talking points" memo face some consequences. I posted this in the original thread the day after it came out, and finally we are seeing some coverage. One of the newspapers who ran that story is noting that the Washington Post had no basis for saying this was a "Republican" memo, since it had no letterhead, no author, no signature, wrong Bill number, numerous typos, and direct quotes from a pro-life website that were in no way "talking points" but would have been political strategy if anything.
source

Is there a danger that a written, signed, notarized living will soon won't be enough to ensure your wishes are carried out and that government may still get involved, regardless?
If some of the insane legislation that is getting suggested actually passes, there is *some* danger. However I seriously doubt such legislation would pass constitutional muster.


Will there be or should there be consequences to Congress and the president for violating the Constitution and intruding on a state issue for one person?
Yes, and no. This isn't just a "Red-state" transgression. The Dems were complicit on the summary vote (ie, one objection would have forced it into the debate/normal voting process). I'm just as angry with them as I am of Frist, Delay, Santorum ad nauseum.

If you believe there should be consequences, what should they be?
First, I'd like to see the SC overturn the "private" legislation. As for the remainder of consequences, I think the public should decide that in the 2006 & 2008 elections. Frankly, if I don't like Melvin Watt's (my rep in Charlotte) explanation of why he stayed silent (he's a Dem, btw), I might just vote for whomever is running against him. The way the executive and legislative branches behaved in this affair made a complete mockery of those institutions.

Doc

Well, it's a little late for this, but apparently when Americans don't get asked irrelevant questions about a freaking coma in their Terri Schiavo poll, they seem to actually agree that she deserved to live. Or did Karl Rove put Zogby up to this?

I think this poll directly affects our topic -Will there be or should there be consequences to Congress and the president for violating the Constitution and intruding on a state issue for one person, I predict those politicians who took the correct stand will be rewarded in '06 and beyond.

Zogby polling

This coming from the same Pollster that predicted Kerry was going to win by a considerable margin Heck he even went on national TV (The Daily Show) and said it a few days before the election.

But take a look at those questions, do you really think that the complexities of this case can be boiled down into a simple yes/no poll question?

I know some polls were cited earlier saying that people didn't support what the government was doing, but I have been thinking about the concept of applying polls to this situation in the first place. I believe that it is impossible to acurately ask the question in such a way as to include all of the details and not introduce any bias into the question.

Is there a danger that a written, signed, notarized living will soon won't be enough to ensure your wishes are carried out and that government may still get involved, regardless?

This entire situation is a result of our media outlets engaging in hyper-sensationalism. Terry Schaivo is out of the mainstream media. She died, next story. That is about as much as FOX News or CNN cares about Terry Schiavo. That is about how much any of us, who are not her family members or friends should care. This affects so few people, but we are engaged in a debate about it. Why? Because we are all chimps in the media's petting zoo.

A living well? What is that? A make-believe term. If you are unable to make rational decisions, you are already dead.

Will there be or should there be consequences to Congress and the president for violating the Constitution and intruding on a state issue for one person?

There will be no consequences to Congress or the President. The Congress and President are part of the system, Dem or Repub, they are all part of the system. In order for there to be any consequence, you would have to ask the system to turn against itself. Won't happen.

If you believe there should be consequences, what should they be?

Y es, there should be consequences. We should burn the Constitution or at the least update it. Some of the tenets still apply, but anything written by someone in a peruke is in need of an update.

A neocon is one who was liberal for a long time and then switched to conservatism-- it is difficult for me to believe that a former liberal who claims to care about people would ever make such a statement-- even in terms of abortion or doctor-assisted suicide there is usually a deep sympathy for someone's feelings and if there is any dismissal of someone else's humanity, it is usually denied or rationalized away rather than stated so bluntly. Are you really a neocon, or just trying to be controversial?

Just in case you're serious-- Elian Gonzales was deemed legally unable to make rational decisions, was he dead? Whenever I'm asleep, I am unable to make rational decisions-- should anyone have the right to kill me in my sleep? People come out of comas all the time-- should we have a policy of starving them to death unless they have a living will?

A living will is not a made-up term, but apparently the only thing that can keep someone alive who is unable to communicate for themselves-- an inability to communicate or even to make decisions might give someone a reason to decided for themselves whether their lives should be artificially sustained-- but most people on both sides of the debate agree that in an ideal situation, the individual would have left clear instructions on that count, and the person would be making their own decisions or have their own preferences honored rather than being subject to a blanket rule that everyone in who cannot express their own decisions is already dead.

As you say, we might be all monkeys in the media petting zoo, but many of us are genuinely interested in matters of life and death-- truth, justice and the American Way. These might just be words in a comic book to some people, temporary media-fueled obsessions to others, but the rest of us might just be willing to put our lives on the line for them in a heartbeat-- we may strong disagree with each other about the details, but we care.

Sorry Jacky Boy, but a Neo-Con is not what you think it is.
From dictionary.com:
"An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s"

Being a Neoconservative does not require you to have been a liberal. You can be a centrist like me who turns to conservatism because they find liberalism to be so disagreeable.


I never claimed to care about people. I reviewed my post to ensure I did not write anything like that. I know I do not talk like that, so I guess you are commenting on an imaginary arguments.


Since your definition of a neocon was incorrect I will give you a pass on this one. But I will answer your question. I am not trying to be controversial. I am genuine in my comments.


Just in case I'm serious?
Elian Gonzalez...... interesting comparison here. This is incredulous that you would accuse me of being ingenuine and then counter with a comparison as comical as this one. My answer to your question is that Elian Gonzalez was not dead. My first question would be, is Elian capable of answering a question in regards to his residence? The answer would be yes, he is capable. Is Terry Schiavo? No, she is not.


A woman in a vegatative state for 15 years being compared to a period of rest. I won't even respond to this


Here we go, something realistic and appropriate. In this situation I would defer to the doctor. I would want to know the likelihood of recovery and then based on that information the guardians or next of kin would have to make a decision. If there is hope, keep them alive, if there is no hope, they should die.


You are right that a living will is not a made up term. So I am wrong on that point, because I looked it up on dictionary.com, I enjoyed the definition
living will - A will in which the signer requests not to be kept alive by medical life-support systems in the event of a terminal illness. Interesting.
I am not suggesting a blanket rule. I am suggesting a weighing of the facts and a decision being made by those most affected by the life in question, such as family, friends, spouse, and children.

Then I guess we are caught in the middle of an ongoing debate concerning the official definition of that word. Most of the links resulting from the following Google search agree with my definition, but then yours may come to be predominant in the near future...

http://www.google.com/search?q=neoconservative+defined



Sorry, my assumption flowed from a common definition of neoconservative, and probably an unfair stereotype. If you don't care about people, that's your prerogative.



Thanks for the pass, I was just confused by the label. I accept that your are being genuine now that I know where you stand.



You have a right to be incredulous with me... I haven't met too many people who come right out and say they don't care about people, I was caught off-guard.



Sorry, I was not trying to be comical, I was just curious to what extent someone who does not care about people would consider them to be alive given a broad definition.



Given the main topic, I can see why you thought I was making such a comparison-- I was just again trying to see to what extent you would apply the broadly stated rule in other cases.



So long as you think close relatives should be involved and not doctors alone, we probably actually agree on the policy, even if we don't agree on the reasons.



Cool. Then in the end, even though you and I have opposite world views, we agree on the best policy.

Edited to fix markup

I guess this is the point where you expect me to say, "Wait, I didn't mean it like that." Well, that won't happen. Let me clarify so we understand where I am coming from. People like you and Cube Jockey will try to take my words and twist them somewhere down the line. If you are my family and friends, then I care. If I don't know you, I don't care about you. I care about events that effect people but I don't care about the people. For example, I was upset about the events on 9/11, but I don't want to hear some sob story about a father on the 86th floor making his last phone call home. I don't care. Unless it affects me, I am indifferent.

I guess a better way to put it is that you cannot appeal to my emotions.

Now this is rich...not that anything will happen as a result. It looks as if the infamous “memo” about capitalizing on the Terri Schiavo case has been revealed as originating from Senator Mel Martinez’ office. Of course, a lower-level lackey was fired as being the culprit.


And does anyone believe this whopper?

Oopsie!
This has the stink of Tom DeLay all over it.

Edited to add: ha ha, beat ya to it, Cube
Funny thing, tho, the GOP still stands by their man. Wonder who DeLay's gonna fire now (he already got rid of the Ethics Committee who filed charges against him, right?)

Just as an FYI, there is now evidence supporting the memo. It was penned by a senior member of Mel Martinez's staff. From the Washington Post:


So there you have it Carlito, straight from Martinez himself. The Washington Post was right. Yet every conservative pundit and blog out there is still claiming it was a Democrat forgery - where are their retractions? Here is a list of recent quotes a blogger put together including everyone from Rush Limbaugh, to Tucker Carlson to Sen. Bennet.

And if you are going to believe Martinez's spinning in that write-up that he "wasn't responsible" and he "hadn't looked at it" I have a bridge to sell you in Arizona... cheap.

From the St. Petersberg Times - this is back from 2004 by the way, before this mess started:


The cat is out of the bag here and the Republican motivation for this is now public record. This is a good, and appropriate, quote from Sen Biden on the matter.


I think that in light of this memo now being real and the fact that the conservative pundits and blogosphere keep lying about it, it very well could come back to bite the Republicans. Hard.

Edited to add: Darn it, must have been posting at the same time as Daffy.

Yup. If I would have blamed it on Democrats, I'd issue a retraction, but I don't think that I qualify as a 'pundit' anyway.

Tom Harkin told the Washington Post that Martinez handed him the memo...


Blaming your staff is so John Kerry. He should be ashamed of himself. Martinez is coming off like a real jerk here. He should have come clean long ago about this.

By the way, Tom Harkin is just another example of those "dispicable hypocrites" using the 'culture of life' for political gain, right? Oh wait, he's a Democrat....

M'dear, he was just one of 47 Democrats who jumped on the Schiavo bandwagon. And all 47 of them are just as guilty as the Republicans on this one. The only difference is that the Demos involved did not originate the push nor were any of them THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Oops, meant to provide a link to the 47: Daily KOS

Carlito I was responding to your post where you claimed that this "memo" was a forgery and therefore this wasn't going to look bad for Republicans. I wasn't lumping you in with pundits. I would have thought that was clear from my last post where I quoted exactly what you said on the subject.


Uh I'm sorry carlito, your opponent hands you a damaging memo because he is an idiot and "didn't read it" and you don't do anything with it? Are you kidding me? I'm glad the the Democrats are finally pulling a few punches below the belt, it is about time they started fighting the Republicans with the same tactics instead of rolling over and crying about it.

It is important to expose this kind of stuff when it happens, regardless of who is doing it. If the Republicans want to claim that they are for a "culture of life" and they were "only interested in the well being of Schaivo" that is fine. But let's let the American people know what their real intentions were, hmmm?

If politicians want to continue to lie to advance their causes, they should be prepared for the time when they are called on their lies.

I find it rather funny that instead of admitting - gee perhaps the Republicans screwed up here and they didn't have Schaivo's interests at heart, you instead try and blame it on the Democrats

Another thing I find rather predictable is the lack of coverage this is getting from the Republican bugaboo, the (dah dah DUHN!!!) "liberal media". There was a very quick passing reference on the newscasts last night, but zipped by at the speed of light. Amazing. You'd think a "liberal media", or even an independent media, would explore this further.

I'm not blaming Harkin at all - REPUBLICANS SCREWED UP OK - IT"S THEIR FAULT! I salute him for going public with that memo. My 'culture of life' comment was referring to Harkin's principled stance in working across party lines to attempt to save this woman's life. Just like those those 47 Dems listed (thanks for the link Daffy). Good for all of them, and neither they nor the Republicans will face a bit of political fallout in a year and a half, because they were trying to do the right thing.

Staying on topic, in terms of the "fallout" from this issue I'm now saying that Martinez is on the list for falling out. And he looks like a schmuck.

DaffyGrl, Don't be so hard on the "liberal media" - most of them are probably sleepy from pulling all-nighters reading up on Christianity for their pope funeral coverage.

From Bartleby.com



I don't think this is going to be on the radar screen in 19 months the simple fact that politicians were caught being politicians.



Even Daffy recognizes this is a dead issue outside of internet political forums.

Ok, well now your comment makes a little more sense. I guess you were saying that 47 democrats signed the bill so what about them? Do you think that I am willing to give them a pass simply because they are Democrats? If you do then you obviously don't know me very well. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to do anything about it. If you look at the list that Daffy Provided, they are all House Democrats. Only one of them happens to be from California. He also happens to represent San Bernardino (outside LA) and you'll notice from my profile that I live a good 6-7 hours away.

This is kind of a similar argument I hear people reciting about the Patriot Act - well all but two Democrats signed the thing how can you oppose it? My answer would be so what, they were wrong - do I have to agree with everything they do?

I still think the consequences for this whole thing are going to be felt at the ballot box. And as far as the house democrats that voted for this thing go, if attitudes over at dailyKos are any indication they won't be getting as much support in 2006 as they otherwise might have gotten.


But that's the thing Hugo - if you look at practically every single example in recent history of "politicians being politicians" that was leaked to the public those politicians and sometimes their party have paid dearly.

Probably the most famous recent example here is Bill Clinton. Regardless of whatever good or bad he did in office he is going to be remembered by most for the whole Monica L affair. Who here is naive enough to think that politicians messing around on their wives in Washington whether it is with interns or hookers isn't a shockingly common practice? Yet when a story breaks in the media the whole country is shocked and awed and we can't talk about anything else for months at a time, not even important national issues.

For some reason the american electorate simply ignores the fact that politicians are politicians until it is brought to their attention. When it is indeed brought to their attention history proves they react by tossing said politicians out of office.

No, Daffy most certainly does not believe this is a dead issue. Don't mischaracterize my words, and please don't put words in my mouth. Let me see if I can make my point a little clearer for those who don't get nuance.

Republicans characterize all media as liberal and yet that same media is not covering a story that would make conservatives look bad. If media was truly liberal, it would give this coverage, and Tom DeLay's future would look pretty grim. It proves that the media is FAR from liberal, and beholding only to their corporate daddies, who are by and large, conservative.

If I were a journalist, I'd splash this whole mess on page 1 in 60 point font or as a headline story on TV and demand the scumbag's resignation.

I'm also not getting the nuance - are you calling DeLay or Mel Martinez a scumbag? Only asking because this memo was a Senate thing, and DeLay's in the house. I think that the Tom DeLay scandal is getting a pretty fair bit of coverage, despite the Republican spin doctoring to the effect of "Hey, Nancy Pelosi flew somewhere on a lobbyist dime too." Reminds me of that definition Hugo posted.

OK, the last line was in the heat of passion, cuz I was ticked that Hugo twisted my point about media coverage incorrectly. Mea culpa. To answer your question, both are scumbags, and both oughta be out on their ear , Martinez' lame excuse notwithstanding.

This thread is getting dragged off topic when there are 2 others dealing with this aspect of it.

The media covers stories that people are interested in. The media has a for profit bias. The fact is few really care about this issue. The story has no legs. There is no chance this will be an issue in 2006.

Should people consider the disrespect the two major parties show for the Constitution: Yes, the Libertarian and Constitution parties are an option. Sadly, history tells me, it will be a widely ignored option.

I think that automatically "erring on the side of life" is disregarding due process through sour grapes. Crying about the lack of "activist" judges willing to step in with Shiavo while condemning "activist" judges regarding gay marriage conveys the phenominal double-standard. The lesson of Shiavo being the importance of making your wishes known one way or the other. Maybe that was Gods mysterious way in this case.


any government, minicipal state or federal, that disregards the will of the individual whose choice is known is, in my opinion, overstepping its authority.

I dont think that there is need for any further reprocussion than making sure, when it is time to vote, that voters remember exactly who was in favour of infiltrating their privacy so that they can vote accordingly.

THAT is what made the biggest political threat to those who would have, otherwise, marched right in to sieze the day. Not that our modern bandwagon culture of immediate information and bloated opinions didnt contribute.

The malignancy is not a "culture of death" but how a large portion of the US derive their information and opinions from sources whose very exhistance relies on a devided nation. Compramise and understanding died the day it became proffitable to point a finger and exaggerate for the sake of ratings and collecting a following that will buy a book or website subscription.

I am simply reminded of the latter portion of the ole American catchphrase "United we stand, Devided we fall" coupled with a lil' Pink Flayd "All in all it was another brick in the wall"

Solomon was wise enough to figure this kind of thing out.... Why was it that we could not?