Was the Revolutionary War justified?

[Leonard]

I just found out, if true, that Governor Jeb Bush tried to rescue Terri Schiavo but that state law enforcement officers backed off when local police told them they would not allow Terri to be seized.

[carlos123]

You need to look at Article 3 of the Constitution of the United States.........  Don't feel bad; most people have no idea it's there.

Can you expand on what you said a bit more Leonard? . Not sure what previous statements made you are saying Article 3 applies to. Likewise I am not sure who should feel bad about not knowing something in Article 3 that you feel applies.......

My guess is that you are referring to Section 2 - Clause 2 or Article 3 which states...

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

As I read this clause it says that the Supreme Court will have direct jurisdiction over all cases affecting Ambassadors, public Ministers and Consuls, and those where a State is a party. That in all other cases the Supreme Court will have jurisdiction through appeal to it. And that the Congress may regulate the Exceptions and Regulations under which that jurisdiction is carried out.

Given that attempts were exhausted through the Florida State courts and that an attempt was being made to overturn a perceived injustice I see nothing at all inconsistent with the Constitution to have allowed the case to be brought before the Judicial branch of our Federal government. Either directly or by appeal.

Congress stepped in to make plain the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (through the Federal Court system) in saying that the Schindlers could appeal to the higher courts to right an injustice they felt needed righting. That is all I see them as having done.

If that is so I see absolutely nothing unconstitutional about what the Congress and Senate did. Nor do I see anything whatsoever unconstitutional about what the President did in signing what the Senate and Congress agreed to as Law. I think it is quite a stretch to call that tyranny.

I mean if we go as far as saying that Congress had no business making plain the Federal jurisdiction over the Terri case then we must also disavow any jurisdictional claim over most any number of other State issues that have alrerady been declared within the jurisdiction of the Judicial branch of government. Everything from appeals made by criminalls in capital cases to appeals made under civil rights issues would have to be deemed inappropriate IF we say that an injustice occuring in State cases cannot be taken further into the Federal courts.

Under the Constitution the States do not have absolute power to treat their citizens in whatever way they so choose.

The situation with Terri can certainly be seen from a purely jurisdictional or legal view (a lens which most all the judges saw this through) but if we do just that we are missing the heart of the matter. The bottom line is that a human being was being perceived as being put to death unjustly. Surely the Federal Courts had and have jurisdiction over such a case if they have any jurisdiction at all to interfere in State cases that may lead to injustice and violation of the rights of U.S. citizens within State boundaries.

No offense intended to anyone but to say that Congress and the President were acting tyranically shows an ignorance of the Constitution at best or a slanderous accusation that is not supported by the Constitution at worst in my opinion. I could be wrong but that is how I see it.

You know as an aside the amount of ignorance and brazen declarations made to the effect that this or that is unconstitutional absolutely amaze me. I mean you would think these days that we could use the unconstititutional card, as I like to call it, to win just about any hand that life might offer us under these United States.

It's a card that just like in poker many claim to have. But just like in poker, when it is called, it turns out to not be in our hand and indeed to be no card at all. It would be downright hilarious as an example of general ignorance if it did not involve such serious consequences.

Next thing you know we will be declaring that any attempts to tell us to keep our dogs on leashes, increase prices on our electirc bils, and limit the kinds of movies we can watch are unconstitutional! It's quite handy actually to declare such because most American's are so incredibly ignorant of what the Constitution says that just like the king with no clothes everyone might just go along with our declarations and not fuss over what we declare so emphatically and so loudly to be so unconstitutional.

Carlos