DU lawyers: are there any precedents against Congress

[Eric J in MN]

intervening in a civil case with a bill which specifies one person?

[imenja]

1. that law will be struck down by the Supreme Court

This is my sense of the case, as a non-lawyer:

The federal government has no standing in this issue. It's not simply a function of the bill being about one person. It's an improper intrusion of federal government over not only state law but an individual's private right to refuse extraordinary medical intervention. If this law is challenged through the courts process, which I assume it will be, it will have to be overturned on those grounds. Once they undergo appellate review, laws establish precedent that extend beyond one individual. If the law were to be upheld, it would have to apply to every American in similar circumstances. Imagine the havoc that would cause on hospitals in this country, where on a nearly daily basis patients have life support suspended and die peacefully.


I'm not a lawyer, but it's clear to me this is whole spectacle is a farce. They know very well that they can't keep Terry Schiavo from dying. They instead want to score political points and win votes over the issue.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. But can we be sure, in a post-BushvGore world? nt

[blogbear]

3. Very Valid!!

[imenja]

4. nothing is sure

but the Supremes have struck down many of the Bush administration's abuses of power, particularly in relation to treatment of terrorism suspects and the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. I can't imagine a law like the Schiavo one being upheld.

[imenja]

5. also, the Schiavo case has already been to the Supreme Court 3 times

and the court has chosen not to intervene.

[sonicx]

6. the SC struck down other appeals, so it's possible.

[WillowTree]

15. I wish people would stop saying that!

The Supremes "struck down" nothing in this case. They merely refused to hear it.

[WillowTree]

8. Question:

You said

"They instead want to score political points and win votes.........."

Would that not lead you to believe that at least they think that the majority of their constituency would support what they're trying to do? I mean, I'm always intrigued by these arguments that what one politician or another is doing is politically motivated because, almost by definition, that would mean that they're trying to do what they think will be most likely to get them elected or re-elected, which logically means keeping the most numbers of voters happy.

Anyway, it was just a thought.

[imenja]

9. not the majority, but the most engaged

They no doubt have been flooded with phone calls. Polls suggest the overwhelming majority (82%) support an individual's choice to refuse such treatment. But the Right is far more engaged and active than the rest of us. That is why they are so successful at getting their agenda acted upon.

I should also point out that I don't doubt that conservative politicians believe strongly in this as a moral issue. But their focus on the Schiavo case to the exclusion of others suggests politics must be a significant element here.

[teryang]

7. It violates the federalism principle

There is nothing per se wrong with a special bill. The problem is that it is the province of the states to define this issue.

What part of the Constitution which grants the Federal government limited powers grants it the right to legislate this issue?

Inasmuch as a state court has adjudicated the state law on the issue, this legislation coming from the federal legislature violates the federalism principle. (10th Amendment)

If the matter were decided by the Tallahassee legislature it would be a violation of the separation of powers doctrine under state law.

[imenja]

10. Could the federal government pass a more comprehensive law . . .

that would take that power away from the states? State versus federal power is always being redefined: the 13th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, etc... Would it not be possible for the federal government to set national standards that would trump state laws on right to die questions?

[Eric J in MN]

11. Has Congress previously passed any laws which specify one person? nt

nt

[WillowTree]

16. Yes.

[adwon]

14. It would take a hell of an argument

Congress would have to show considerable economic impact on interstate commerce because of people choosing to die rather than live on life support (or whatever it's called). Considering that it's quite unlikely that Congress could persuade the Court that this variant of suicide is economic in nature, the Court would be likely to toss such a prohibition due to their reasoning in both Lopez and Morrison (these cases dealt with Congressional regulation of noneconomic activity and traditional areas of state regulation).

Now I bet Congress could fashion spending bills that would coerce the states into a prohibition. And I'd further bet that Congress could fashion a better rationale for subverting state authority. But I'd bet the house on the Court tossing the coercion because the end (relatively few deaths) is out of proportion with the means.

[Eric J in MN]

12. is this bill mentioning one person unprecedented? nt

nt

[imenja]

13. apparently it is constitutionally prohibited

See this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3312170