It appears that the Terri Schiavo case was confined to the courts of the State where it originated and that the Supreme Court of the USA either had no jurisdiction or, if theoretically it could have jurisdiction, refused to claim it,perhaps through convention. (You can tell this is a Briton asking; we have conventions but no true, single, constitution so the word convention springs to mind )
So, for that to happen there had to be a law passed. I take it that this was made specific to this case, referenced only to her family,simply because of political expediency. An outsider would expect any change in the law to be made general and national, so that any family in this position had the same right, regardless of where in the United States they were. This outsider guesses that making such a wide bill would create opposition on a large scale all over. A one-off bill confined to one case might not.
Please explain why and how it can possibly be that a 'local' court has the final word on such a question. What matters are so confined, so that they stay within the state in question but other cases do not ? Are there many so restricted? How are they defined as falling into the 'local' category?
It appears that the Terri Schiavo case was confined to the courts of the State where it originated and that the Supreme Court of the USA either had no jurisdiction or, if theoretically it could have jurisdiction, refused to claim it,perhaps through convention.
---------------------- The US Supreme Court has juristiction over ANY and ALL of the 50 States, and (if I am not mistaked) can also rule on its territories.... The case is now being debated by district court in Atlanta, Georgia.... The Supreme court has declined to hear this I believe 3 times before because the lower rulings were ruled legal....
Posts: 2258 | Location: Naples, Florida, United States | Registered: 06-03-02
Supreme Court of the USA either had no jurisdiction or, if theoretically it could have jurisdiction, refused to claim it,perhaps through convention.
They were asked to rule on it, and they declined to hear the case. The Supreme Court deals with cases that are subject to federal law rather than state law. When they deal with state law it is to clear up conflicts with federal law.
The justices did not give a reason for not hearing the case, but it is likely that they did not feel it was their place and that the issue was a matter for the state courts (this was after the final state court decision had been announced). If federal law (including the Constitution) does not have anything to say on the matter, it is not under the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
It is unusual but not unheard of for Congress to make laws directed at specific people or entities, but the Supreme Court has ruled that such laws can only be beneficial. Congress is not allowed to dole out individual punishments through the law. You are more or less right about political expediency. One house (I think it was the House of Representatives) actually did pass a more general law, but the other (the Senate, if I'm right) would only pass the narrower law.
Originally posted by FredPuli: Please explain why and how it can possibly be that a 'local' court has the final word on such a question. What matters are so confined, so that they stay within the state in question but other cases do not ? Are there many so restricted? How are they defined as falling into the 'local' category?
The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Founders of the U.S. wanted the majority (95% or so) of government to be at the state and local level, with the federal government only having a tiny role in a few very restricted and very defined areas.
As one result of the federal vs state laws Dr Kevorkian was sentenced to 10 - 25 years in prison for something he could have done legally in Oregon, because the U.S Supreme court found that state laws against euthanasia were not unconstitutional. Go figger!
)
