Balkinization  

Monday, March 21, 2005

Text of Schiavo Legislation

Marty Lederman

Here's the text of the Act as enacted and signed into law this morning, as reported by FINDLAW. Congress appears to have dropped the provision of the Senate bill that would have given the district court the authority to enjoin the state-court order (i.e., the authority to order reinstatement of the feeding tube) simply upon the filing of a lawsuit. Under this version, the district court is only empowered to grant injunctive relief "[a]fter a determination of the merits" -- that is to say, only if and when a federal court determines that Terri Schiavo has a federal constitutional right to compel the state to reinstate the feeding tube.


AN ACT

For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO.

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.


Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.

SEC. 3. RELIEF.


After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING.

Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.
SEC. 6. NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim related--
(1) to assisting suicide, or
(2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.

SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.

Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.
SEC. 8. NO AFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1990.

Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient Self- Determination Act of 1990.
SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

It is the Sense of Congress that the 109th Congress should consider policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care.

Comments:

I don't understand.

1) It looks as though the bill is a NoOp, in that if Terry's rights under the constitution or US law are violated, it can be brought to the Fed. courts, and the Suprime court decided that it was not a Fedral case. Is the congress declaring that they are over-riding the Suprime court decision?



2) Would it not be more reasonable for the Congress to declare that they have the right, say by th request on any representative, to have the Federal court review any state decision or declare that the congress can reverse any state decision, rather than writing a one of the kind law?

Thanks.
 

Raj: Seriously, what are you talking about? Art. III, Sec. 2 sets a constitutional maximum on federal court jurisdiction. The federal courts don't actually have jurisdiction until Congress gives it to them. Congress has passed lots of statutes giving federal courts jurisdiction over certain kinds of cases. This is not controversial or a focus of debate between liberals and conservatives.
 

Until you do your best, don't try to take a rest. Until you take a leap, don't try to sleep. Until you top, don't try to stop.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home