Remembering Roosevelt: To Hell With the Constitution
Family, Life, and the Body March 26th, 2005Ah, for the days of Teddy Roosevelt, someone who spoke his mind and more importantly acted on principle. During a strike of coal workers Roosevelt was so annoyed with the intransigence of the mine owners who refused to even to talk to the union workers gathered together at the White House that the President threatened to take over the mines and use the army to run them. When a congressmen questioned the constitutionality of this act, Roosevelt grabbed the man and said: "to hell with the Constitution when the people want coal."
The move would have been illegal or at least semi-legal, but the mine owners knew he’d probably at least try to do it. The result? The owners relented and agreed to submit to arbitration chosen by Roosevelt.
Terri Schiavo is being starved and dehydrated to death in Florida and the President throws up his arms in the air and says he’s done all he can do. Really? In the face of intractable and capricious courts, perhaps Bush needs to have a Teddy Roosevelt moment and threaten to send in the federal marshals to rescue Terri. Perhaps that would at least wakeup the courts. When a US Citizen is being murdered with explicit approval of the judiciary and this is considered "constitutional" (which, by the way, I think it isn’t), then to hell with this so-called interpretation of the Constitution.
March 26th, 2005 at 2:37 pm
I respect the Constitution as the law of the land and am not disparaging it. I am condemning a particular interpretation of it, namely by the pro-death courts. I believe that Bush’s duty to send federal marshals stems from both his moral and Constitutional obligations. I just don’t want anyone to take this post the wrong way.
March 26th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
I don’t think that has a chance of working in this case. The Teddy Roosevelt issue isn’t really analogous for three reasons: 1) the coal miner strike was a bread and butter issue for the middle class, since central heat based on coal was one of the main marks of middle class life, 2) the courts weren’t as powerful back then and 3) Teddy Roosevelt knew that the mining company owners were likely to back down, which is not the case with either Michael Schiavo (it’s gone way to far for that) or the judiciary (since it, unlike the mining company, can fight back swiftly and very effectively). The reason the mining company relented is because they knew they’d lose more money during the time between Roosevelt’s taking over the mines and the Supremes voiding his action than if they negotiated a settlement with the miners.
Besides, as you reported earlier, Jeb tried sending in the troops during a brief, automatic stay and that didn’t work out very well. If Bush sent in marshalls on legally dubious grounds, why would their welcome be any different. The last thing in the world the pro-life movement needs is for cops to be fighting or even shooting other cops because our pro-life president sent in the troops on dubious legal grounds, not to mention the innocent civilians that might get caught in the crossfire.
March 26th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
Publius,
I was mainly using the Roosevelt case as an example of a President taking or threatening decisive actions. You’re right about public opinion, which would’ve backed Roosevelt, but won’t back Bush here. On the other hand, moral issues aside, I think that large parts of Bush’s base will be very upset if he doesn’t act (I’ve already seen people on blogs calling for his impeachment, not that this represents anything substantial, of course). I think using the marshals is a long shot, but worth doing. Legally, I found Pat Buchanan’s arguments sound on this, but I doubt that either Bush will use state or federal police. It’s just too risky politically, but I think it is morally justified. They’ve done quite a lot, especially Jeb, and I’m grateful for that at least.
March 26th, 2005 at 10:49 pm
I disagree about the issues of public reaction. Bush has said he makes decisions and sticks with them when it comes to things like the Iraq War. Remember, President Bush began that war as a first term President, risking his chances of reelection. Obviously, we now know that he won, but running through the election it was close. George Bush is now term limited out. He could make a daring decision and not even have to worry about reelection.
Let’s remember how Janet Reno ordered the “rescue” of Elian Gonzales (in guess where - Florida!). The liberals loved it. The conservatives were against it. But by and large, it had no effect on the Clinton Presidency.
Jeb Bush is also term limited out. Yes, this might hurt his chances to run as Senator or later as President. (I once said I would welcome a Jeb Bush run in 2008 and would gladly vote for him. Now, I would not vote for Jeb Bush even if it was a contest between him and Hillary Clinton.) Jeb Bush, in my opinion, has ruined his political career. By getting involved in this at all (it would have been morally wrong not to), he has angered liberals. By not doing enough (ie - enforcing the Florida State Constitution, upholding the U.S. Constitution, etc.), he has angered conservatives who care about the sanctity of life. This means he could face a primary challenge within his own party for an office such as Senator and would probably lose. Furthermore, Senator Bill Nelson (D) had made comments in support of Terri. Senator Nelson is not in a position to do as much as a governor can.
I believe there was a point during the Civil War in which there was a showdown between Chief Justice Taney of the Supreme Court and Abraham Lincoln. Taney presided over the court when they issued the monstrously evil Dred Scott decision. Lincoln paid no attention to Taney. Abraham Lincoln is one of our nation’s greatest Presidents, if not THE greatest President of all time.
March 26th, 2005 at 11:52 pm
“Let’s remember how Janet Reno ordered the “rescue” of Elian Gonzales (in guess where - Florida!). The liberals loved it. The conservatives were against it. But by and large, it had no effect on the Clinton Presidency.”
IIRC, the courts (and perhaps statutory immigration law as well) were on the Clinton administration’s side. And once Elian was returned to Cuba it was a done deal that couldn’t be undone anyway. The courts have (very wrongly) ruled consistently against Terri’s feeding tube being removed. There are no more legal options. If either Bush tried to send in the troops, it would be voided by a court and the troops would be ordered to leave in short order and she would still die; it’s much too much to expect any politician to take probably illegal (as interpreted by the judiciary) and career-ruining actions when failure is 99.99% assured. That is assuming they could get the troops in in the first place, which bring us to:
“By not doing enough (ie - enforcing the Florida State Constitution, upholding the U.S. Constitution, etc.), he has angered conservatives who care about the sanctity of life.”
He /did/ send in state troopers, but pulled them back when it was clear the local police wouldn’t let them through without a fight. Would you rather he had precipitated a bloody shootout in front of the hospice and littered it with the corpses of police and innocent civilians (who were protesting in favor of saving Terri)?
“I believe there was a point during the Civil War in which there was a showdown between Chief Justice Taney of the Supreme Court and Abraham Lincoln. Taney presided over the court when they issued the monstrously evil Dred Scott decision. Lincoln paid no attention to Taney. Abraham Lincoln is one of our nation’s greatest Presidents, if not THE greatest President of all time.”
That isn’t remotely analogous. First of all, that was long before the Warren court, in living memory of Andrew Jackson’s presidency, and at a time when the spoils system was still in effect (i.e., federal bureaucrats were all basically political appointees of the currect president). Secondly, he was the president, not just a governor. Thirdly, and most importantly, it was in the middle of a civil war and he had the military mobilized on American soil. If Mr. Taney was able to stop, trying to do so would have been extremely unwise under those conditions.
March 26th, 2005 at 11:55 pm
“Secondly, he was the president, not just a governor.”
Obviously this point against the analogy only works with Jeb, but the other two work with both.