Here’s a question that divides even self-proclaimed liberals and conservatives, and causes discomfort in a great deal more.
Some are encouraging the President and Governor of Florida to do whatever it takes to save Terri Schiavo, even if that means sending out troops to take her into custody - an illegal (or at least not legally defensible) act. Others frown upon Congress taking the unusual actions they did to save her - while not Constitutionally forbidden, they say it sets a bad prescedent. One side thinks the other is willing to sacrifice real lives for a nebulous concept, while the other thinks that the first doesn’t realize the long-term sacrifice they’re really making.
To wit: the “save Terri” crowd believes that if the law would allow Terri to die, it’s bad, worthless law, and needs to be disobeyed, the same way Rosa Parks disobeyed the law, and the same way the Dred Scott decision was flaunted. The President’s and governor’s first duty is to protect the people, and thus they have a duty to save Terri by whatever means necessary. If that means impeachment, that means impeachment, but the action needs to be taken. How many people, they ask, are you willing to sacrifice at the altar of the rule of law? Ten? Twenty? A hundred? A million? Where does it stop?
Indeed, the “rule of law” crowd asks, where does it stop? When does doing so make the entire system worthless? Would you react the same way if the result were one you disagreed with? Because if either Bush does it now, it’ll be inevitable. Congress and elected officials will decide that they can meddle in anything and everything they want, because the prescedent is set, and no one life is worth our entire system and way of life.
I thought that it was truly dumb to have the presidency and the congress under the control of the same party; amazingly, the Judicial branch has showed so much independency that even conservative judges are telling the Bushes to butt out.
What comes next is going to be ugly: I shudder then I think of what kind of right wing nut will Bush choose to be the next nominee to the courts, since the current crop was not conservative enough for right wing tastes.
Either the politicians follow the rule of law, or they step up to the plate to argue for new law. The ultimate decision is up to the courts, and by extension, the people.
I believe elected officials can use civil disobedience to protest laws they think are morally or ethically wrong if they abide by the consequences of breaking those laws.
So, if President Bush wishes to send armed troops to take possession of Terry Shiavo, the only way I’d see it as acceptable would be if he then resigned his office and pled guilty to the relevant charges of kidnapping, etcera. Probably not going to happen, though.
That’s an easy question. When the personal value in doing so is worth the penalty. Of course, the only moral thing to do after is to confess and suffer the penalty, but when it comes down to it, while we are a nation of laws, we are all humans at heart, and the personal moral imperative is more important than law.
I do not suggest anarchy, simply that laws are a social construct, and breaking them can be done at will, after careful consideration, provided you are willing to take whatever penalty there is.
Some elected officials have sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Most citizens have not. While all would be legally responsible for upholding the laws, would there be more of a moral obligation on those who have taken an oath?
(My question is not meant to imply that elected officials still cannot have a greater moral obligation to civil disobedience that to standing behind their oaths.)
The problem with that idea is even many conservatives would be appalled by this. Even deeply religious ones. If God exists, he doesn’t need the politicians to save Terri. All he has to do is have Terri regain consciousness and say “feed me.” A fair argument can be made that the “save Terri” crowd is advocating interfering with the will of God.
When the drug knigpin is laughing at the law and your Captain is too busy covering his ass with the Commisioner to do the right thing, so he demands your badge…
So, the family can’t agree. Tough! There is no valid reason to let the courts and government decide Terri’s fate. She still human. What the family should do is sit down with a phsycologist and come to a conclusion. Until that can be done, re-insert the freaking feeding tube, give Terri a Margarita, and let her be alive. Hospice should not have let them get this far. Hospice should bring in a Doctor to talk to both sides and come to an agreement. One way or another I bet anyone that it has to do with money! ~Neorave
I agree with phouka. I believe anyone should be able to practice civil disobedience, but they also should face the consequences of their actions.
I don’t believe laws are sacred, infallible things which are necessarily righteous or appropriate. Our country has had a number of laws which are immoral. “But it’s against the law!” should not be enough to scare someone from doing what is right.
Civil disobedience by a president or other top position should be used only for big important things, IMHO. If a president raises a fuss with every court verdict or every bit of legislation, he threatens to undermine the process and the trust the people have in their elected officials. The president and his brother vehemently disagree with the Florida SC, fine. But I worry that by undermining this body’s authority in public, they are giving permission to everyone else to disrespect the process and everyone associated with it. It’s sorta like having a supervisor who tells you to ignore the assistant supervisor and he’s standing right there, in front of you. It’s not a healthy thing.
o/The ants go marching one by one, hurrah! hurrah! o/
Okay, for the 258,925th time:
This has been going on for 15 years, been heard by 20-odd judges, been batted back and forth by doctors and lawyers and family members and nurses and judges and a couple hundred other people who shouldn’t be involved at all, has consistently been found in Schiavo’s favor (meaning that cessation of life support is what Terri actually wanted…this was found through corroborated testimony by multiple witnesses by an independent and neutral Guardian Ad Litem appointed by the courts, not on Michael Schiavo’s say-so alone), and all the money won by Michael Schiavo in his malpractice settlement with Terri’s original doctors is gone…used to pay for her care for the last 15 years. There is no money there to be done with. He’s been OFFERED over $1 million dollars to give up guardianship to her parents and turned it down.