Federalism is a mechanism, a means to an end.

It's not the end in itself.

Progressives and their progeny (and Reynolds is their progeny because of his technocratic impulse, whatever his ungrounded, momentary political preferences may be on any given issue) love process. Process gets them to technocratic rule, which is preferable for them to those goofy notions of natural right/law and popular sovereignty found in, say, the Declaration (and other founding documents that preceded it).

Sorry, but I'll take Lincoln's notion of the party as the upholder of the principles of the Declaration over Reynold's technocratic preferences for a party to which he's never claimed any real allegiance.

Federalism is the secular version of the principle of subsidiarity. It's a worthy and important value, but not more important than life.

Due to the 14th (national citizenship) and 17th (no more selection of Senators by state legislatures) amendments, Federalism is a concept with no constitutional vitality.

Libertarians lack a soul. Instapundit is no different.

On the broader front, Instapundit like many critics of the GOP here are first creating a strawman which they proceed to knock down. The fact is that under the Constitution, Congress has power to set jurisdiction of the courts. It merely did so here. Further, the 14th Amendment grants full power to Congress when a state is denying due process. Congress decided that the state process given Terri's parents was not "due". Congress may make such a determination if it cares to do so. What GOPer thinks exercising constitutional powers is improper?

Finally, what principle of federalism says that Congress must defer to the courts of a state when that state's executive and legislature disagree with the courts. Does not true federalism mean Congress should side with the executive and legislature, not its renegade courts?

This case makes me mad on so many levels but one level is this total lack of thought that law professors and judges are exhibiting.

Odd how court-ordered starvation isn't seen as invasive or intrusive.

Odd how libertarians and pseudo-libertarians aren't upset about such judicial overreach.

The truth is most conservatives dislike PBS not because it is a network owned by the federal government, but because it is has a strong liberal bias.

Odd how so many are so eager to impose their judgments upon others, but so loath to be on the receiving end.

Why is that odd?

Jeff:

Are you describing Judge Greer?

No, Jeff is describing all those rude dissenters who interrupted his peace and comfort by forcing him to confront the reality of what was done to Terri. Tasteless and intrusive. It didn't change his views, but even though it ended exactly as he wanted, it's made him testy anyway. I wonder why.

Peter:

You seem to be such an expert on my views.

How about telling me what they are?

Consider this: Congress and the President acted because it was not clear that Terri Schiavo wished to die the way she did. The press and the Washington Dems are always looking to exploit what they see as GOP hypocrisy. Sometimes they're right, but not here. That Congress and the President would get involved was not an issue of federalism; they thought the judges were wrong.

"Libertarians lack a soul." That's the spirit! Come out swinging!
Seriously, federalism is good, unless you're a Stalinist. Unlimited centralized govt worked out reeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaal well in the 20th century, right? Cone on, guys, adjust the dosage on the meds.

(Yeah, bring the flame war. Bring it!)

Hugh Hewitt had an interesting lineup this evening to discuss the Schiavo case. He had Dennis Prager and his brother Kenneth Prager, a doctor and bio-ethicist on. Hugh and Dennis were of the opinion that it was a bad judgement on the part of the courts, and that due process was not done. But they did not think that the law was inherently flawed, which would allow the removal of a feeding tube if a) Terri Schiavo's interests were properly determined by parties with no conflict of interest and b) the diagnosis of PVS were certain and any doubt of her ability to feel pain during the period of starvation were ruled out. Neither Prager thought that this case put America on a moral slippery slope.

Hewitt later had on Father Richard Neuhaus. Neuhaus decried the "Culture of Death" that would allow any human being, under any circumstance, to be denied nourishment, and basically rejected the very notion of living wills.

Hewitt did not argue the point with him, but by Neuhaus' definition, and many others, Hewitt and the Pragers are part of the Culture of Death. You'd have to include William F Buckley as well. Don't feel so bad Jeff, there's a lot of good company at the CoD.

Buckley is a libertarian--they're always in the Death camp.

Robert:

Sure there are differing opinions of where to draw the line--it's a tough and poignant issue if you are talking about the terminal elderly or those obviously suffering in hopeless circumstances. But at least people like Prager are willing to draw a line somewhere (Are you sure they said Terri's "interests" as opposed to "wishes"? Are we now moving beyond "wishes" and into objective assessments of "interests"?). That's something you guys appear unable or unwilling to do. Jeff just keeps deconstructing actual situations into ever more abstract, general questions about life, law and medical science to convince himself it's all very subtle and complicated. Afterwards, he sits back and watches the slow and painful death with a poignant sigh. Then, presumably to convince himself he's actually very humane, he treats himself to a nice general rant about how "religion" mistreats "women". Apparently, he can no more stand up and say that anyone should live in an actual given situation that he could ever stop an individual abortion, no matter how brutal and selfish. The culture of death does not include everyone who believes death must always be fought to the hilt. It is comprised of those who always find a way vote for death.

If as recently as a few years ago, those challenging proponents of assisted suicide or euthanasia or whatever expressed fears that the courts would allow an ex-husband {who is either a)out to get rid of her; or b) under the influence of a very weird and almost cultish lawyer) to starve and dehydrate a 40 year old woman, who was severely mentally disabled but physically quite healthy, based upon incomplete medical analyses and casual oral remarks she made in her twenties, they would have been accused of wild fear-mongering (you know how excited and irrational those religious people can be!)and assured that only the most obvious and hopeless cases where medical testing had been exhaustive and wishes were clearly and unambiguously determined would be affected. Now, suddenly, we're all quality-of-life experts with a working knowledge of neurology and a sick theory of how the only real value to life is in the higher mental facilities.

Check here for one distinguished doctor's take on the absurd judicial reasoning and torture in this case. If he reads it, I fully expect Jeff to come back and tell us he raises more questions than he answers and that his professional judgment that death by thirst is unadulterated barbarism is just one man's opinion.

I still don't understand why any libertarian is comforted by the fact that this judge (or any judge) apparently holds the power of life and death, without the restraint/guidance of the representative branch. Where do they think judges derive their power? From God?

Peter,
You are reading a lot into Jeff's comments, but I'll let Jeff set you straight on that. Yes, of course it is about drawing a line. I am a firm believer in lines, it is just that most of us are arguing about where that line should be. The extreme "life" position refuses to draw any line.

I believe that there needs to be a Federal standard on where the line must be at a minimum, both from the medical and legal/procedural standpoints. I am basically in agreement with the Pragers on this issue. I think that the absolutist position that Neuhaus represents defies common sense. If someone is brain dead beyond all hope of recovery, what purpose is served by prolonging their life?

Robert:

According to you, Neuhaus is opposed to denying nourishment under any circumstances. If you are right, he is basically saying no one should be starved and dehydrated to death. That's a far cry from withdrawing artificial measures to prolong life, which he doesn't disagree with. But you still characterize him as an absolutist who "basically rejected the very notion of living wills."

Robert, I presume like most of us you have thought long and hard about this in recent weeks. Don't you agree it is pointless to argue when the facts are a moving target and when words don't mean the same thing anymore?