Federalism is not reducible to state's rights, as these liberals seem to think. It describes a distribution of power between the states and the federal government. And among the federal powers, granted by the 14th Amendment, is the right to protect citizens from having their right to life infringed by a state. So federalism gives the federal government the right to protect Terri.

Of course there is the detail of whether the 14th Amendment was constitutionally adopted. Which it wasn't.

Why not refrain from Federal intervention here and allow individual states to make their own decisions, just as we should on abortion?

oj-

A plain reading of the document implies a federalist structure vis a vis the states. The powers and perogatives of the states are of considerable importance as political power is assumed to be more justly exercised as close to the people as possible through their representatives. A strong central government is necessary but there are assumed limits regarding it's competence. There would be no 9th or 10th amendments nor "Bill of Rights" were this not the case. The federalists of the founding era were always friends and proponents of a strong central government but would be surprised and dismayed at it's consumption of over 20% of GDP and it's far reaching bureacratic and regulatory nature. When the interests of the state take precedence over the plain interests of the people based on nothing more than theories supporting the 'levelling' tendencies of demagoguic and power hunhgry politicians the purpose of thge constitution has been defeated. Dependency on the whims of office holders and their baseless theories regarding social engineering schemes and the coercion required to impliment them was hoped to be avoided
through the defintion of powers and responsibilities. The protection of life, liberty and property is the reason for governmmnet.

Because the right to life is inalienable.

Tom:

Yes, but you're only talking about structure. The point of the document isn't to create means but to achieve ends.

For the 14th Amendment to apply, don't you need State action? Here the State is not depriving Schiavo of life, her husband is (and is doing so in accordance with state law). As much as I'd like to see this decision reversed, I don't see it happening within the current laws on this issue.

Yes oj, but what are those ends? Do the means include a constitutionally limited and predictable government with defined powers? The rule of law or the arbitrary rule of men?

No.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty (*) to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

(*): "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

So does the constitution define and delienate powers between the feds and the states or not?

No. If it had there would have been no Bill of Rights and it too made a hash of things.

You are a living constitutionalist? I don't believe we are speaking about the same document or words are merely social constructs, without meaning. BTW, the arrangemnet was ratified by the states, not directly by the people.

Tom:

The Anti-Federalists were right.

oj-

Of course the anti-federalists had a point and were at leats partly correct in light of developments, however, the words of the constitution have a clear and obvious intent as far as limited government and the role of the states.

Adopting the constitution signed the death warrant of state power on issues that matter.

Foos: A judge issued an order to starve her to death. That is state action. Anyway, state action is defined when necessary pretty broadly. Private race clauses in deeds were held invaild since the enforcement violated the 14th amendmemt.

oj-

Issues that matter? According to whom? Like state laws regulating abortion?

Tom:

Yes. They were overturned, weren't they?

oj-

Again, who decides which issues matter? Roe, Dred Scott and Wickard v Fillburn were constitutuionally sound decisions? If you honestly believe so then there is no constitution nor rights other than those defined by the state.

Did the states ratify the constitution under false pretenses? Were the Federalist Papers a con? These are simple questions and all but the first are simple aye or nay.

Yes, the Federalist Papers were a con. The first con was that they co-opted the name Federalist even though they were the supporters of centralization of power.

Is Roe not the law of the land today?

oj-

Not for long.