The Patient Scholar
Reflections on Learning and Teaching
Mon, 21 Mar 2005
I teach American national government as an adjunct at a local community college. Tonight, I wanted them to work through the Terri Schiavo case so they could tease out the important questions that were being raised.
The Congressional Republicans and the President are framing the debate in terms of the right to life. The President has said, and I must say that I agree (all other things being equal), that in matters of such complexity as the Schiavo case we should err on the side of life.
This question of life provided rich material for part of our discussion. What characterizes life? What level of life is necessary before one can be presumed to possess rights? Is our conscious ability to appreciate rights a necessary precondition to either our exercise of them, or their protection for us by someone else? These are not easy questions, and frankly the amount of information that we are receiving from the media does little to prepare us for the national debate on this issue that the President seems to desire.
Another fundamental question is whether Terri Schiavo’s case is one that is appropriate for federal review? There is precious little, at first blush, in the Constitution that would lead one to believe that the federal government is empowered to overrule the state in issues such as these. Where is the federal question? I do not see it. Making this a state issue is much easier. The state’s police power comes into play, which power is understood to be:
Public safety, public health, morality, peace and quiet, law and order - these are some of the more conspicuous examples of the traditional application of the police power to municipal affairs. Yet they merely illustrate the scope of the power and do not delimit it (see BERMAN v. PARKER, 348 U.S. 26 (1954)).
Florida is in the best position to deal in law with the Schiavo case. Good and noble intentions notwithstanding of the Congress, Florida should remain the only entity to deal with the case. Otherwise, we must all be willing to accept a federal incursion into yet another aspect of our lives.
As always, information is our friend, and can help us understand at least the circumstances, if not arrive at an answer to vexing questions. An excellent resource for information about the Schiavo case is the Abstract Appeal blog by Matt Conigliaro.
Wed, 27 Oct 2004
OnTheIssues.org is an interesting web site that may be of use to voters trying to see where candidates stand of various, well, issues …
The site also provides an ideological quiz of sorts by which you can evaluate either the candidate, or yourself … (now, what was I? Bleeding heart liberal? Reactionary conservative? Oh, the labels, the labels!)
Mon, 25 Oct 2004
Where has all the civil (in any sense of the term) discourse gone? “We’ve become a nation of Us and Them.”
See Tracking News that Oozes, at The Campaign Desk.
I’m not quite sure what to think of this …
Votepair.org
Sun, 24 Oct 2004
Electionline.org is a web site providing a fair amount of information about election reform throughout the United States. Of particular interest is the Resource Library as well as the Interactive Map.
Sat, 23 Oct 2004
FactCheck.org is an admirable tool for those wishing to track truth indiscretions on the part of national candidates. I wish we had something similar for local races here in Utah.
Last night, I listened to a rebroadcast of a debate between John Swallow (Republican challenger)and Jim Matheson (Democratic incumbent in Utah’s second congressional district) on KUER. I didn’t catch it all, but I caught enough to make me wish that there were a truth meter I could simply switch on to get the whole story.
Mr. Swallow has been waging an aggressive campaign against Mr. Matheson. His aggressiveness has led him to make certain statements that are either willful misrepresentations of the truth, or that are representative of an inability (or unwillingness) to make fine distinctions in meaning, or that are representative of a desire to hold his opponent to a past statement, even though by his opponent’s admission that past statement no longer represents a current stand.
The case in point is Mr. Swallow’s continued assertion the Mr. Matheson is pro-choice, a stand that would, if it were true, put Mr. Matheson at odds with (probably) the majority of the voters in his district. This assertion is based upon a vote taken by Mr. Matheson in 2002, regarding a partial-birth abortion ban that did not include an exception for the health of the mother (see this article at the Salt Lake Tribune). The perception of Mr. Swallow’s comments are that Mr. Matheson is pro-choice. Whether this is his intent or not, I can’t say. What we can see from what Mr. Swallow is doing is that he is concentrating on one or two votes, out of a number of votes, on abortion, and he is not providing the full context.
Mr. Swallow and his campaign wish to hold Mr. Matheson accountable for his votes, as well they should. Not giving all of the information, simply providing that information which is convenient for Mr. Swallow’s campaign, is not fair.
Wed, 06 Oct 2004
Utah’s voter information guide is now available. Prepared by the Elections Division of the Lt. Governor’s Office in conjunction with the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, the guide is a valuable tool. Voters will particularly appreciate the presentation of proposed amendments to the state constitution and to the Utah Code, with analysis, as well as statements in support and in opposition.
Visit the Elections Division web site, pass your mouse over “Voter Information”, and then select “Voter Information Pamphlet” from the pop-up menu.
Tue, 05 Oct 2004
Campaigns are rife with hyperbolic rhetoric and an occaisonal arms’-length relationship with the truth. Two excellent resources to check up on questions of national scope:
I have often maintained that the proposed constitutional amendment in Utah, as well as the national Defense of Marriage Act could be challenged on constitutional grounds under the full faith and credit clause in Article IV. There is an exception to the full faith and credit clause of which I was unaware.
There is a “public policy” exception, wherein the courts will give deference to the public policy of one state when it conflicts with that of another state, and a litigant wishes the public policy of the other state to be recognized. This exception has been applied in other cases involving marriage (for example for polygamy). (see Full faith and credit clause at Wikipedia.org.)
Nevertheless, the Court has changed course before, and the notion of a non-political Court is, whether for good or ill, an illusion at best. The Court pays close attention to the people and the people’s will, and it may only be a matter of time before the people’s will is such that a change in the public policy exception occurs, at least in the case of gay marriage. In gay marriage, there is no clearly vulnerable population at risk, as there is in polygamy. Nor is there a clear public policy issue as there is in the case of consanguinity. The public policy exception won’t carry as much weight in such a situation.
Another constitutional challenge may exist. Some churches are allowing the celebration of same-sex unions. For example, the Episcopal Diocese of Utah has announced plans to allow priests to bless gay unions (see Utah Episcopalians Bless Same-Sex Unions). As churches begin to recognize and allow same-sex unions, the issue becomes one of religious freedom, pitting the First Amendment and the full faith and credit clause against the public policy exception.
