Murder isn't a matter of Federalism
I'm deeply disturbed by this drivel on the Draft Thompson '08 blog.
The only evidence we have that Teri Schaivo wanted to be offed by starvation was the word of her husband, Michael- the one with the most to gain. And I'm sorry, states righters, but murder by starvation legitimized on the basis of hearsay is a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Federal Constitution.
This is not a states' rights issue, and Fred Thompson's inept response to that question about Schaivo is not helped by efforts to portray it as such. In fact, this post causes my waivering support for FDT to waiver still further.
The only evidence we have that Teri Schaivo wanted to be offed by starvation was the word of her husband, Michael- the one with the most to gain. And I'm sorry, states righters, but murder by starvation legitimized on the basis of hearsay is a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Federal Constitution.
This is not a states' rights issue, and Fred Thompson's inept response to that question about Schaivo is not helped by efforts to portray it as such. In fact, this post causes my waivering support for FDT to waiver still further.
Comments
The worst part about it for me was the obvious conflict-of-interest on the part of Michael Schaivo. He was, de facto, someone else's husband. The law completely failed to take this into account.
However, murder is a matter of Federalism. Murder is the responsibility of the states to outlaw. Murder is against state law.
A situation in which murder is legal is ipso facto a state of anarchy. In such a situation, even under the most fanatically states rights-oriented interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, the Federal government would have the responsibility of stepping in and establishing order.
The main point, though, once again is that depriving a person of life without due process of law is a violation of specifically the Federal Constitution. By no theory do the states have a right to do that! Moreover, by definition such laws involve hearsay usually by precisely the people most interested in seeing the person dead. The only way to avoid that would be to require a written and witnessed document to a person's desire to be euthanized under certain conditions. And since suicide- assisted or not- is illegal, there is a real question to be raised as to whether our legal tradition would recognize a written authorization for euthanasia as having any legal standing. Dr. Kevorkian's imprisonment was for acting precisely with the express permission of the person involved to kill him!
Bear in mind, finally, that we are not speaking here of a "right to die" case. Teri Schaivo did not die of natural causes; she was deliberately dehydrated and starved to death. We are talking, no matter how we dress it up, about a supposed constitutional right to kill somebody else.
I would argue that under no constitutional theory, given the history of these issues in the Western legal system, can such a right be maintained. That being the case, no state has a right to violate the Equal Protection Clause by enacting right-to-kill legislation.
I say the State of Florida made the mistake and the buck stops with the governor. You say that the failure made by the state warranted federal intervention.
The main point, though, once again is that depriving a person of life without due process of law is a violation of specifically the Federal Constitution.
It is a violation of the Constitution for States to deprive a person of life without due process of law, and as the Florida court system had a court order to do just that, the fourteenth amendment would seem to apply. The only question is if the court order constituted due process of law, which it probably did (I don't know for a fact).
Anyway, the fourteenth amendment is wildly impractical. It is a false promise the Washington D.C. can guarantee that none of its 303,149,076 citizens had their rights violated today. At best, Washington D.C. can only practically protect rights selectively. It chooses which case it is going to fight today, which means the process is politicized. Schaivo was high-profile, so the congress tried to get involved.
The bill of rights was written into the Federal Constitution to protect the people from rights violations by the Federal Government.
What about the academic problem of what if a state made murder legal? Well, I think that would be constitutional. The State has to provide equal protection. If murder was legal, each citizen would be equally protected, or rather, equally unprotected.
equal protection is not available to the person in question.
Again, in Teri's case, hearsay evidence from the very person who stood to gain the most from her death was the basis on which the decision was entered. Teri could not defend herself. Again, equal protection denied.
Should a state vote to legalize murder, I would argue that the Federal government would be specifically mandated to intevene by the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.