I'm not sure what I think of all the political shenanigans.

The plain fact is that we require a lower standard of evidence ("clear and convincing"--no jury) in cases like this than we do for an accused criminal ("beyond reasonable doubt"--and a jury).

And to be clear, the main point in contention is Terri's true wishes. Did she say to Michael what he claims, and IF SO has he correctly interpreted that for this situation?

What will it take for us to raise the standards of evidence in cases like these?

The Declaration of Independence reads that governments which are instituted among men must derive their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed. It was never the intentions of those who lost life and limb that we should look to a bunch of lawyers/judges for all the answers. Sentencing Ms. Terri to a death that we don't subject dogs to-- in the name of "governance"--- is not, in my book, the civil society our founders envisioned.

The problem with the Terri case is just one more example of how America has turned over her responsibilites to a judicial monarchy. I for one, am sickened.

I found a great quote recently: Who are the Best Keepers of the People's Liberties?

Republican.--The People themselves. The sacred trust can be no where so safe as in the ands most interested in preserving it.

Anti-republican.--The people are stupid, suspicious, licentious. They cannot safely trust themselves. When they have established government they should think of nothing but obedience, leaving the care of their liberties to their wiser rulers. --James Madison, National Gazette, 12/22/1792
from Larry D. Kramer's latest book

I don't get it. How is protecting life and property outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress? The congress acted at behest of the people.

It is the will of the STATE legislature that has been contravened by an arrogant, out of control judiciary. The judiciary is the entity that is trampling the constitution. Judges have shown that they believe they are in complete control and can safely ignore the will of the people as expressed through their duly elected representatives on both a state and federal level on ANY issue. Unelected judges are shaping the nation as they see fit; this is the real constitutional crisis here.

Perhaps Glenn Reynolds chosen profession has blinded him to the obvious.

Please blog a few words regarding your opinion of Bob Schulz and We The People Foundation. Bob says...

"That the President's panel would ignore the Constitution of this nation, and the unalienable Rights of We the People, while reforming the single most intrusive and dangerous function of government, should give us all great pause."

Please take a quick look at Bob's website and blog your thoughts regarding it...

http://www.givemeliberty.org/

Thank you very much.

The judicial branch provides a check on the overreach of both the legislative and executive branches of government. What are the checks on the judicial branch controlled by appointees with no direct electoral mandate from the American public? Among other things it is the legislative branch's ability to legislate. If a law is struck down by the courts, the Congress may rewrite and pass new legislation that in turn may or may not stand up to further judicial review. Why the outrage over Congressional action in the Schiavo case? Congress did (in my mind) what it was clearly allowed to do constitutionally. The unique legislation, however, did not pass judicial review. Seems the system works in this case.

Doesn't the Constitution guarantee against the government sentence of death without due process? Where was due process in this case? Where was the evidence? We are on the road to oligrachy.

- this very long comment was deleted for being completely off-topic -