First Principles, #2

Posted by TFG on March 28th, 2005

It seems that I’ve failed to be totally clear about exactly what it is that’s so bothersome for me about the Theresa Schiavo case. Let me try to boil it down here:

#1. Can we agree that the Declaration of Independence formed the basis for the constitution (little c, there, lawyers & other pedants) of the United States of America? Is it fair for me to say that this is the absolute bedrock upon which we rest?

#2. Are there unalienable rights defined in there, specifically, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”?

#3. Is it not stated therein that any government that arises from that Declaration is going to be of men, and answerable to men, and specifically tasked with protecting those rights?

#4. Was there, at any point in our nation’s history, where we decided that any of 1-3 have changed? Here’s where you Constitution people can feel free to correct me.

#5 Are we not witnessing, right now, in the case of Theresa Schiavo, a usurpation of those rights from #2 by the government from #3? To wit, the judicial branch of the state of Fla. is denying a woman her right to Life.

#6. It then falls to the people to stop that, and we do that through our other employees — the legislative branch and the executive branch — by whatever powers they have.

So…before we talk feeding tubes, water-headed pinatas, Rule of Law, equal protection, extraordinary measures, theocratic Republican takeovers, Right to Life, facts in finding, Culture of Death, or any other fucking stupid red herring you might wish to drag across the path…tell me where I am wrong. Personally, I don’t think you can do it, but I’m willing to read, especially if you have some links.

Personally, too, I wish Jeb Bush had rolled the Florida National Guard tanks, and taken the lady to a hospital, and resuscitated her. To protect her innocent life, of course, but secondarily (if that’s a word), to get two questions onto the table: do states’ rights mean a damn thing in 2005 America, and are we still guided by the lights our Founding Fathers lit for us 225 years ago? If you want to blast me for turning Theresa Schiavo into a symbol for other goals, don’t bother. I’m well aware of what I’m saying, and I don’t believe that it dishonors her in the least, no more than it dishonored any other regular American who stood up and made us think hard about our country and make changes to the way we were running things.

12 Responses to “First Principles, #2”

  1. mr. helpful Says:

    if you’re against ALL “death with dignity” laws which allow situations like this to occur then i’m with you, sir.

  2. Scott Chaffin Says:

    That’s a second or third principal. I want to get this part nailed down, at least in my own mind.

  3. Nerd Says:

    Couldn’t you make a pretty good argument, though, that the government intervention from Jeb and Congress has denied her right to liberty, i.e., her right to die? It pretty clearly violated her right to privacy, though I’m fully aware that there is a significant minority that believe that particular right to be dubious, at best.

    I would also imagine that two very reasonable people could come up with completely different definitions as to what defines life…I know the framers couldn’t have possibly envisioned the lengths to which we’ve gone to keep Terri alive.

  4. Ed Glenn Says:

    You are correct in your assumptions, but that does not guarantee that your conclusions are correct. While “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is a bedrock principle, how people choose to act on those rights are subject to intepretation and regulation. I would assume that “pursuit of happiness” (hypothetically, of course) would not allow a middle aged pop singer to commit sexual acts with little boys, even if it really, really made him happy. This is why legislatures, courts, and law enforcement exist. Our bedrock principles cannot be allowed to devolve into anarchy, with everyone interpreting their rights as they please.

  5. James R. Rummel Says:

    I’d pretty much have to agree with what Ed Glenn says.

    Other than that, I think that you’re constructing a straw man with your first point. There is no guarantee of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the Constitution, no matter how much inspiration the authors gained from reading Thomas Jefferson’s most famous work. The Declaration of Independence isn’t a legal document in any sense of the word, and it doesn’t have any bearing in the Schiavo case.

    James

  6. Ken Says:

    Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License. The Fat Guy is powered by WordPress | Design by Andreas Viklund | Ported by Ainslie Johnson