- EverVigilant.net - "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." - John Philpot Curran
Michael Lee Swails of Immokalee, Fla., was charged recently with starving 120 cows. The 47-year-old rancher "was arrested Thursday in connection with the discovery of dead, dying or severely malnourished cows on his ranch last year."
Meanwhile, Terri Schiavo continues to starve to death thanks to the court-ordered removal of her feeding tube. While the exact value of a human life hasn't been determined, we now know that it's less than the value of 120 cows.
The president is a hero to conservative pro-lifers for his efforts to save the life of Terri Schiavo. Perhaps they don't realize that he was once on the opposite side of this issue:
WASHINGTON - The federal law that President Bush signed early Monday in an effort to prolong Terri Schiavo's life appears to contradict a right-to-die law that he signed as Texas governor, prompting cries of hypocrisy from congressional Democrats and some bioethicists.
In 1999, then-Gov. Bush signed the Advance Directives Act, which lets a patient's surrogate make life-ending decisions on his or her behalf. The measure also allows Texas hospitals to disconnect patients from life-sustaining systems if a physician, in consultation with a hospital bioethics committee, concludes that the patient's condition is hopeless.
Bioethicists familiar with the Texas law said Monday that if the Schiavo case had occurred in Texas, her husband would be the legal decision-maker and, because he and her doctors agreed that she had no hope of recovery, her feeding tube would be disconnected.
"The Texas law signed in 1999 allowed next of kin to decide what the patient wanted, if competent," said John Robertson, a University of Texas bioethicist.
While Congress considered legislation recently in the Schiavo case, Bush's Texas law faced its first high-profile test. With the permission of a judge, a Houston hospital disconnected a critically ill infant from his breathing tube last week against his mother's wishes after doctors determined that continuing life support would be futile.
Despite a last-minute effort by Congress and President Bush to allow a federal hearing for Terri Schiavo, U.S. District Judge James Whittemore has already denied an appeal, saying that the arguments made by Schiavo's parents failed to establish a "substantial likelihood of success." It would seem that hope for Terri is quickly fading.
I have refrained from commenting on the plight of Terri Schiavo because I really don't know all the details of the case, and I didn't want my contribution to end up being just another knee-jerk response from a pro-life Christian. While I believe that what we are witnessing in Florida is a case of state-sanctioned murder, there are broader implications that need to be explored.
First, allow me to preface my remarks by saying that you will find few people who share my strong pro-life convictions. I think that abortion is perhaps the worst sin our nation has committed; it is a sin against God and man that is no longer merely tolerated, but embraced as a sacrament. I believe that physician-assisted suicide is legalized murder, taking us one step closer to the mainstream acceptance of euthanasia. And because I hold the sanctity of human life in the highest regard, I believe that those who take the life of another person should, according to biblical guidelines, be expected to pay the ultimate price for their crime.
Let me add that I think the Florida courts are wrong. They have essentially sentenced Terri Schiavo--a woman who has not been convicted of any crime--to death by starvation, a cruel and inhumane punishment that would never be imposed on even the most vile, despicable serial killer.
I also believe that Michael Schiavo, Terri's so-called "husband," is a liar, an adulterer and a sorry excuse for a man. He once said, "I believe in the vows I took with my wife--through sickness, in health, for richer or poorer. I married her because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that." (Did I mention that he's a liar?)
Chuck Baldwin, pastor, columnist and radio talk show host, had this to say regarding Michael Schiavo's marital fidelity: "Michael maintains that his efforts are motivated only by his desire to fulfill Terri's wish that she be allowed to die … Since Michael didn't seem to care about Terri's wishes when he decided to commit adultery, why should anyone believe him when he says he is only honoring her wish to let her starve to death?"
While it would certainly be nice to see Michael do the honorable thing and stand by his wife, I think it's safe to say that his marriage has been damaged beyond repair. He committed adultery and fathered two children out of wedlock. He has clearly given up on Terri and now only wants to put her out of his misery. If Michael has any shred of honor left in his wretched being, he will consent to a divorce and turn guardianship of Terri over to her parents. It doesn't take the wisdom of King Solomon to realize that would be the best solution for the parties involved.
All of that said, I must confess that I'm worried about the actions of Congress and the president in this matter and what they mean for our political future. I realize the bill that was passed and signed into law early Monday morning specifically states that it sets no precedent, but in reality it does. If our elected officials can arbitrarily alter judicial jurisdiction for a particular case--even if it is to save a life--what assurance do we have that the same tactic won't be employed for more sinister reasons?
There are many conservatives who believe that what Congress did was score a major victory in the fight against judicial activism. Referring to Article III of the U.S. Constitution, they contend that Congress has the explicit authority to establish or change the jurisdiction of the federal courts. By exercising this power, so the argument goes, it is possible to reign in judges who refuse to abide by the Constitution.
This solution, however, ignores the root cause of the problem, which is the activist judiciary itself. All it would take is one federal judge to rule any such law unconstitutional, and we'd be right back where we started. The best defense against rule by judicial fiat is to elect representatives and senators who understand their constitutional obligation to impeach those judges who abuse their power.
In addition to the uncertain effects on our legal system, I am concerned that this might pave the way for the federalization of issues over which the states now have sole jurisdiction. If federal jurisdiction can be assigned to any issue on a case-by-case basis, we might one day see states' rights eliminated altogether. Just as I think it would be a tragedy to ban capital punishment on the basis that one innocent person may be wrongfully convicted, I also believe it would be wrong to trample on states' rights and set a dangerous judicial precedent on the basis that one innocent person may be spared.
None of this is to say that Terri Schiavo should be sacrificed in the name of states' rights. I understand that desperate situations sometimes call for desperate measures, and I will allow for the possibility that what Congress did may fall within our nation's constitutional framework.
But where does it end? Now that members of Congress have exercised this authority over the courts, should we now expect them to intervene in the same way on behalf of others? Should a new law be passed that will allow the federal government to become involved in the physician-assisted suicide cases that are sure to arise? What about abortion? Why does Terri Schiavo deserve federal intervention while over a million pre-born children are murdered each year by their own mothers?
At this point, I am neither condemning nor condoning the actions of Congress and President Bush. However, I do think we need to consider that even political decisions made with the very best of intentions may have long-term, unforeseen consequences.
Dr. David Alan Black, editor of DaveBlackOnline.com, is one of the most insightful and perceptive writers on the web today. It's quotes like this that keep me going back to his site for more:
We seem to be living in a time when we have acquired an Empire on which the sun never sets, and have lost a Republic on which the sun never rises.
Forgetful that our nation was founded upon the ideal of a limited, constitutional government, and proclaiming the "wonder-working power" of democracy in place of the Gospel, we strut along in self-absorbed importance.
Laurence M. Vance, in his latest article, addresses the current Christian war fever by quoting the great preacher Charles H. Spurgeon. Here are a few excerpts:
The Church of Christ is continually represented under the figure of an army; yet its Captain is the Prince of Peace; its object is the establishment of peace, and its soldiers are men of a peaceful disposition. The spirit of war is at the extremely opposite point to the spirit of the gospel ("The Vanguard and Rereward of the Church," December 26, 1858, Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens).
Far be it from us to lay the blood of men at God's door. Let us not for one moment be guilty of any thought that the sin and the iniquity which have brought war into the world is of God ("The Desolations of the Lord, the Consolation of His Saints," April 28, 1858, Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens, on behalf of the Baptist Missionary Society).
What saves us from war at this moment? What influence is it that is always contrary to war, and always cries for peace? Why, it is the Christian element among us which counts anything better than bloodshed! ("Jesus – 'All Blessing and All Blest'," February 1, 1891, Metropolitan Tabernacle).
The Lord's battles, what are they? Not the garment rolled in blood, not the noise, and smoke, and din of human slaughter. These may be the devil's battles, if you please, but not the Lord's. They may be days of God's vengeance but in their strife the servant of Jesus may not mingle. We stand aloof. Our kingdom is not of this world; else would God's servants fight with sword and spear. Ours is a spiritual kingdom, and the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but spiritual, and mighty through God, to the pulling down of strongholds ("War! War! War!" May 1, 1859, Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens).
No one would dispute that I have a right to use deadly force to stop an attacker that had broken into my home in the middle of the night. In fact, I believe it would be a sin if I failed to do whatever I could to protect my family.
But what if I wanted to take a pre-emptive approach to self-defense? Let's say that I have a pretty good idea which person in my neighborhood would invade my home and kill me or a member of my family if he had the chance. I am convinced that this person has the means to do it. After all, other neighbors have told me that this person has a collection of knives and guns, and it is rumored that he visited the gun shop across town to inquire about purchasing some hollow-point bullets.
Would anyone agree that I have a moral obligation to attack this person before he has the opportunity to attack my family or someone else's? Would I be justified in going over to his house, knocking down the front door and capturing or killing him or anyone else in that house who got in my way?
"Absolutely not!" you'd say. "The fact is he hasn't done anything to you, so you would be breaking the law by attacking him first."
True, I would be in violation of a number of laws. But couldn't I justify it by insisting that my actions would protect not only my own family, but the entire neighborhood?
"No. The fabric of society depends on the rule of law. Imagine where we would be if everyone were allowed to take matters into their own hands."
Okay, so the doctrine of pre-emption doesn't exactly have local applications. Why do we think it's any different on a global scale?
Just as there are state laws designed to prevent me from going on a vigilante killing spree in an effort to eliminate would-be assailants, so too is there a law against pre-emptive military strikes against sovereign nations that haven't attacked us. It's called the U.S. Constitution.
That document charges Congress alone with the power to declare war, a decision that cannot be passed on to the president or anyone else. In short, the Founding Fathers did not want the decision to send soldiers off to kill and die to be an easy one. They understood that in addition to the immediate cost of American lives, there would be international ramifications that could come back to haunt us later.
Our early political leaders spoke often on this very subject. George Washington, in his farewell address, said: "The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled, with perfect good faith. Here let us stop."
John Quincy Adams, while serving as Secretary of State, addressed the subject of foreign policy in a speech before the House of Representatives on July 4, 1821:
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.
Compare the words of Washington and Adams to those of President Bush:
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.
So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
The president, unlike his predecessors, believes the U.S. should be more pro-active in the world. Unfortunately, his call for a global crusade for democracy is nothing more than a prescription for perpetual war, breaking the law of the Constitution he swore to uphold.
We've strayed a long way from the principles upon which this nation was built. War is no longer considered an act of self-preservation; it has become a fundamental part of U.S. foreign policy. And judging from the rhetoric of Washington bureaucrats, the act of dropping bombs on foreign civilians in Iraq is no more serious than shipping electronic components to Taiwan.
