Mar. 28 - Hello everyone! We spent a fairly intensive family-filled weekend. Mark's brother came down from Sault Ste. Marie to attend a bridge tournament here and we managed to catch up on family news and solve most of the world's problems (funny how much of that goes on in living rooms!)

I always have mixed feelings on holidays. There's the ubiquitous nostalgia for the days when we'd hide the eggs anticipating the fun as the kids would uncover them in the most unlikely places (although the dog beat them all on that score!) but those memories contrast sharply with the living reality of seeing competent, adult children who managed to turn out alright despite our fumbling, learn-it-as-you-go approach to child-raising. Raising children is a humbling experience, and even though one does everything one can to protect them from every conceivable danger and to teach them right from wrong, there is simply no certainty and far too often unpredictable luck saves, teaches, and/or hurts them.

The news over the weekend seemed dominated with issues of life and death, and in two of the instances the parents have been at the forefront. It was sobering, to say the least.

Terri Schiavo and the determination of her parents to save her continued to figure prominently in the news, and I think one aspect of her case that younger reporters don't understand is the horror of losing a child. I keep hearing interviews with people referring to making similar decisions on behalf of their parents or with others who believe the case has become personal because we might each be a Terri, but but that completely misses the point.

What would we do were one of our children in Terri's state? One thing I never envisioned would be that I might have to talk to my kids about what they would want us to do should they be in such a condition and it's not a conversation I am looking forward to. (We chose to avoid it at Eastertime. It seemed wrong to have such a conversation while we were celebrating the triumph of life over death.)

We know that we will eventually have to say goodbye to our parents or that we could be struck down and left half-way between life and death, but what parent really expects to bury their child? There's a good reason we have the phrase "a parent's worst nightmare" and it's because such thoughts rarely intrude in our waking moments (in large part because we hastily push them aside - who could abide such thoughts without going mad?) The struggle around Terri Schiavo has a specific personal content for those of us with adult children and raises questions that are not easily answered.

When do we really give up guardianship over our children? Does marriage supercede parental care? I've tried to avoid attacking Michael Schiavo because I can't see into his heart and it is quite possible that he believes he is following Terri's wishes, but I don't understand why he has failed to authorize medical procedures that have been developed over the past fifteen years or aggressive therapy techniques that could have improved her condition. Most parents would pursue any and all courses that might restore, even partially, their child.

It is so easy to assume that we would not want to live in such and such a condition, but humans have a stubborn tendency to fight to live despite terrible pain and our instinct for surivival is not a thing stemming from our heads but from our hearts, and that instinct for survival includes the lengths to which we will go to save our children.

The Constitutional issues this case has stirred are not easily resolved, but there seems a clear antagonism between the executive and legislative branches - federal and state - and the judiciary which exceeds the definitions of federal and state jurisdictions. I tend to refrain from hoping that Gov. Jeb Bush will violate the law, which he would be doing should he defy the courts, but that's reflective mostly of a reluctance to see a publicly elected official put himself above the legally installed judiciary and the implications of such an act.

Yet the governor of a state can legally intervene to stop a legally ordered execution of a prisoner on death row. It doesn't make sense to allow the power to grant life in that instance but not in Terri's.

The intransigence of the courts may be the ultimate root story here. The federal court chose a narrow interpretation of "Terri's Law" which went contrary to the intent of the legislation, and that may well cause more people to question if the judiciary is tipping the balance implicit in the Constitutional separation of powers rather than maintaining it. This case may well begin a series of legislative initiatives to restrain courts which have tended increasingly to make laws rather than interpret them. It will certainly lend flavour in confirmation hearings for judicial appointments where the philosophies of strict interpretation of the Constitution and laws is counterposed to those who believe the Constitution is a "living document."

Far less easily addressed are the questions which must be raised on behalf of those parents who were forced to endure the worst of a parent's worst nightmare during Easter week. There is simply no comment that I, or anyone, can make that could adequately address the hell they went through and the grief of the outcomes much less reflect on what those young girls suffered, so there's been mostly focus on the more clinical analysis of how laws and the courts serve to protect our children from predators.

Most people understand that we must protect those who cannot defend themselves, and the growing anger at the failure of the legal system to keep faith with those who believe in that principle are combining to challenge what is seen as a "soft" approach to pedophiles and other sex offenders who, in accordance with one of our most basic principles, are released after serving their time without being branded or otherwise marked to warn of the danger they may represent because they served their time and have been released with the injunction not to break the law again.

Two, basic legal precepts are in stark contrast, and there needs to be some way found to reconcile them. We believe that those who serve their time should be regarded as rehabilitated and given a chance to begin new lives, and we believe that our children must be protected from predators who defy rehabilitation.

The other big story this weekend, the failing health of John Paul II, represents a different kind of contrast to the first two stories. This man, who led the Catholic Church during a tumultous period which saw the fall of the Berlin Wall, the struggle against Islamofascism and the child abuse scandals, might be said to have fulfilled his destiny. He will leave this world with a legacy that historians will eventually define, but I suspect that one part of that legacy must be the extent to which it inspired and provoked people much as the struggle for Terri Schiavo has.

It is appropriate, although harsh, that the Easter weekend was the backdrop for vast issues concerning the meaning of life, crime and punishment, and death with dignity. We rarely resolve such issues until major controversies force us to confront the fact that they are indeed issues in need of resolution, and the matter of whether those issues are to be resolved with or despite the courts is not the least of the matter.

Mar. 29 - 11:36: Bill of Strong World provided a link in an earlier comment to an essay by Alan Keyes, Why Jeb Bush has the power to act now, which goes into more detail (and better) than I did on the options available to the executive and legislative branches when the judiciary exceeds its authority.

Darned good article. I don't agree with Mr. Keyes's call to action only because I don't think the American people are yet persuaded that the judiciary needs to be restrained and they would view vigorous executive action to defy a court ruling with alarm (yet another downside of the failure to teach the Constitution and civics in schools is the total ignorance of Americans about the workings of their own branches of government, but that's a rant for another time.)

What I do see is that relatively mild surprise has been generated by some of the recent, more questionable rulings which has yet to cascade into the kind of public outrage the legislative and executive branches feel they must have before they actually confront the judiciary. (Or I could be wrong, and Jeb Bush will ignore the court ruling, take guardianship of Terri Schiavo, and appoint an independent advocate on her behalf.) I think it more likely that we may see a series of legislative initiatives that will indirectly confront the courts and gain public support by putting a spotlight on questionable rulings.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who noted that the Supreme Court ducked the Pledge of Allegiance issue on a loophole!

12:01 - Hmm, FoxNews is reporting that Rev. Jesse Jackson is visiting Terri Schiavo's hospice, praying with Schlinder supporters, and strongly criticizing the court rulings ordering Terri's death. He's isn't always an accurate weather vane, but his position will put the liberal media in a bit of a quandary as he is generally regarded as a leader of the national African-American community.

Posted by: Debbye at 07:44 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 1608 words, total size 10 kb.