News-Record.com

Without taking a position on the merits of the Schiavo case, which I presume prompted this question, I would point out that a lot of people objected to Congress' involving itself in *either* case.

"How, then, can we possibly object to a special action taken by that same body involving itself in a matter critical to a case of life or death?"

Because they don't have any authority to do so.

-Article I, Section 8, U.S. Constitution
-Tenth Amendment

Personally, I'd rather see Congress involve itself in manners of life and death than in baseball. And as far as the constitution goes, any pretense of actually following those guidelines was shot long ago. And if Paul thinks that the authority of the constitution (written by humans hundreds of years ago) oversteps the authority of God, he's got bigger problems than baseball or Terri Schiavo.

Just Joe, I respect your right to voice your opinion just as I hope you will do likewise. I do not agree, in fact I strongly disagree, with congress meddling in such private affairs as end of life decisions. That is, in my opinion, one step closer to creating a theocracy rather than the democracy we have always been. Our nation's founders were very wise men to separate state and religion. The separation has served us well thus far and I think our energies are better used for more pressing issues.

My understanding of Paul's information apparently is quite different than your's. I think he was merely pointing out, according to the footprint of our nation's legal guideline (the Constitution), congress nor the president has the right to interfere in private lives with regards to end of life issues. I did not read anything that would cause me to think he thought the Constitution is mightier than God's word.

The Bible is your moral guide (if you are Christian) and is a personal matter. What the Constitution does is it allows you to keep your freedom of religion but protects others from being force-fed your personal beliefs. Since our nation was founded on religious freedom why would you or anyone try to deny others that right? By allowing congress to dictate a religious view, we sacrifice all freedoms.

I didn't mean to say that Congress should intervene in Terry Schiavo's case or dictate a religious view.

I didn't really consider that Congress was doing anything regarding religion in considering Schiavo's case. I think questions and attitudes regarding the legality of situations like hers do sometimes comes at odds with some religious views, but they also exist beyond an individual's chosen religion. It seems people have an opinion on this case whether they are 'religious' or not. I don't really think Congress has the authority to rule on religious matters or individual life or death matters. I think that Congress may need to look at clarifying legal issues regarding end of life decisions. No, I don't think they should dictate to an individual family what they should do. I still haven't made up my mind who should have made the decision in this case and withhold judgement on her husband or her parents.