The Schiavo case: An assault on seperation of powers

By: MIKE BYRON | Saturday, March 26, 2005 6:03 PM PST ∞

Whatever our personal feelings about the case, the Schiavo special-purpose federal legislation raises significant constitutional questions for us all.

As this case was not within the jurisdiction of the federal government, it was properly adjudicated in the Florida court system. Indeed, no one called for a change of venue to the federal court system until the state judicial process produced a verdict that was "wrong" in the opinions of some legislators.

In clear violation of centuries-old federalist principles, the nonjudicial branches of the national government have intervened to set aside the proper and lawful findings of a state court. Consider the precedent being set here: If the courts do not produce the "correct" verdict, then the verdict can be invalidated by other branches of government. Worse, these other branches of government are federal instead of the executive and legislative branches of state governments.

Of course, this intervention directly affects the rights and interests of individuals such as Mr. and Mrs. Schiavo. And it is exactly this sort of capricious, extra-judicial governmental intrusion into the private lives of American citizens that the Bill of Rights is supposed to prevent.

Our political system is founded upon the doctrine of separation of powers and the related concept of federalism. Taken together, these principles define our constitutional system of government.

Federalism means that power is shared between the states and federal, government. The Constitution separates our federal government into three branches: executive, legislative and judicial. These were designed to act as checks and balances on one another. For example, the Supreme Court can rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and signed by the president. In response, Congress can change statutory law or propose amendments to the Constitution. Congress can remove any federal officer, including the president, from office by means of a constitutional procedure called impeachment. Presidents can veto legislation passed by Congress.

This three-way separation of powers at the federal level, and the division of power between state and federal governments, are intended to prevent too great a concentration of power from forming within our national government. The framers of the Constitution believed that such a concentration of power could lead to tyranny. In fact, many early American political figures such as Thomas Jefferson refused to accept the Constitution until a "Bill of Rights" was added, guaranteeing the rights and liberties of American citizens from arbitrary intrusion by government officials.

The Schiavo bill recently passed by the executive and legislative branches of our federal government violates all of the above principles of our constitutional system of government.

With their special-purpose Schiavo legislation, Congress and the president violated the doctrine of the separation of powers, and violated time-honored federalist principles. By capriciously reaching into the lives of American citizens and jerking them around to fulfill an avowedly political agenda, they have violated the original intent of the framers of the Constitution in placing the Bill of Rights in that document.

The Schiavo legislation reassigned the case to the federal courts, and gave other relatives of Mrs. Schiavo the standing to sue there for relief. The U.S. Supreme Court has already refused to hear this case on three occasions. It has established a precedent for this type of case. In Cruzan v. Missouri (1990), with Chief Justice Rehnquist writing the majority opinion, it held that that states have the legislative and judicial power to control passive euthanasia cases, based on the standard of "clear and convincing evidence" of the comatose/vegetative patient's desires to end life support. Therefore, the Supreme Court followed its Cruzan precedent and other legal and procedural precedents and rejected the case yet again.

Given that the American legal system, indeed the entire American political system, is based on precedent, the politicized intervention of Congress and the president into the Schiavo case is unhelpful to American democracy. Although the legislation states that it cannot be used as legal precedent, the very fact that it was drafted, ratified by both legislative chambers and signed into law by the president produces an inerasable historical precedent. However, since the Supreme Court rejected this case, our constitutional system of checks and balances has worked despite clear political interference arising from the legislative and executive branches. Justice, federalism, and the Constitution has ultimately prevailed in this tragic case.

Mike Byron ran unsuccessfully as a Democratic challenger in the 49th Congressional District in 2002 and 2004, and is president of the Democratic Club of Carlsbad-Oceanside.

First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.