A Bill for an Act
Insert Disclaimer here. These are my personal views.
The three branches (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial - see Articles I, II, and III) of the US government are set-out in the US Constitution. All of the branches were created co-equal. That is, no one branch is to have unchecked dominion over the other. This equilibrium is created through a system of checks and balances.
While the fulcrum point among the branches may have shifted back and forth over the years, the system of checks and balances remain to this day. One of of these checks on the Legislative branch is the prohibition against ex post facto laws (see Article I, Section 9):
1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender. Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]
A second is a check on the Executive and Legislative in the process of amending the Constitution (see Article V). Note, the Executive branch plays no part in the amendment process. Proposed amendments originate either from Congress or the state legislatures/conventions and are ultimately approved by the states (either by the respective legislatures or by conventions). Hence, the President does not have the ability to wield one of his most powerful tools, the veto. And Congress can propose an amendment, but only the states can approve it.
Another check on both the Executive and the Legislative is that the Judiciary is the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution means and therefore whether a bill passed by the Legislative branch and signed into law by the President is constitutional. Of course, the Congress, along with the state legislatures/conventions can amend the Constitution (as noted above) but this is a slow and by no means certain process.
With that background we come to the case of a Florida woman by the name of Terri Schiavo. In 1990, Schiavo suffered a heart attack that, among other things, left her brain without oxygen long enough to cause severe and irreparable brain damage. While she can breathe on her own, she cannot otherwise take care of herself.
For the last seven years, her husband Michael Schiavo, has tried to have his wife's feeding tube removed as an effort to end an existence he says his wife did not want. Recently, he was successful in his efforts and Florida state court ruled that the feeding tube be removed. Efforts to appeal the case to federal court have, up to now, failed since the case is viewed as having no federal basis. As background, under various state laws, patients have the ability to choose what level of medical care they receive. However, in this case, there is no record of Mrs. Schiavo's wishes except for the verbal account of her husband.
Because of this lack of legal record, the wishes of Mrs. Schiavo, her husband, her parents, the state of Florida, and now the US Congress may be at odds.
Over the weekend, Congress passed a bill for an Act, and President Bush signed into law the bill that gives:
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.
This is an extra-ordinary piece of legislation, created for one person, rushed through Congress over the weekend (with one account saying only three out of the 100 members of the Senate where even present). It does not require a stretch of the imagination to guess that it will eventually require the involvement of the US Supreme Court. This involvement may come in several ways but the main question would still be is this Act constitutional?
I'm no lawyer and I definitely don't know Florida law. So don't expect me to give my two cents on this matter. All I will say is if Mrs. Schiavo had spent a few hours creating the necessary legal documents while she was well, all of this could have been avoided. If you haven't looked into what is required in your state, please contact your attorney and find out what needs to be done. Now. While you still can. My wife and I did years ago, so should you. Don't let a court, or Congress, determine things for you.
Aloha!