Palm Sunday Compromise

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Terri Schiavo
Related articles & documents
Power players
This box: view • talk • edit

The Palm Sunday Compromise, formally known as the Act for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo, is an Act of Congress passed on March 21, 2005, to allow the case of Terri Schiavo to be moved into a federal court. The name "Palm Sunday Compromise" was coined by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, reflecting the combustible mixture of religion and politics that characterized the Schiavo case.

All of the federal petitions and appeals of Schiavo's parents to maintain her life support were denied, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari. In addition to this specific United States federal legislation, there was extensive other government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case at the Florida state and federal levels, none of which ultimately prevented the removal of her feeding tube.

Contents

[edit] Passage of the Act

On March 19, congressional leaders announced that they were drafting a bill which would transfer the case from state court to federal court. In the very early hours of March 21, Congress approved emergency legislation. Despite an absence of a quorum, the Senate approved the bill (S. 686 CPS) by voice vote on Palm Sunday, March 20. The bill passed unanimously, 3-0, with 97 of 100 Senators not present. Those present were the bill's sponsor, Frist (R-TN), and the two cosponsors, Santorum (R-PA) and Martinez (R-FL) The bill was received in the House of Representatives at 9:02 p.m., and deliberation continued during the unusual Sunday session. When it came to a vote, the motion was passed 203-58 (156 Republicans and 47 Democrats in favor, 5 Republicans and 53 Democrats against), with 174 Representatives (74 Republicans and 100 Democrats) not present on the floor at the time of the vote. The vote concluded at 12:41 a.m. EST; President Bush returned from vacation at his Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, Texas to Washington, D.C. and signed the bill at 1:11 a.m. when it became Public Law 109-3.

[edit] Provisions

The act applied only to the parents of Terri Schiavo — not Terri Schiavo herself — and gave federal courts jurisdiction to review alleged violations of her constitutional rights, without regard to prior state court rulings (a review de novo, effectively wiping out the previous decade of litigation). However, Congress did not attempt to create any new substantive rights for Schiavo, or include any provision requiring the federal court to order reinsertion of the feeding tube pending review.

In practice, the act was completely ineffective. Like in state court, the parents' federal appeals were denied, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari, effectively bringing an end to the prolonged litigation. The Federal courts' judgments were condemned by many of the religious right.

[edit] Criticisms

The act was strongly criticized by many on both sides of the political divide. Four particular criticisms were voiced:

  • The law applied to only one individual. Comparisons were drawn with bills of attainder, which are specifically prohibited by the United States Constitution. While some saw this as a legally flawed analysis since bills of attainder take away individual rights rather than bestow them, the rights of Michael Schiavo, as Terri's guardian, to make decisions on her behalf were stripped away. Additionally, some argued that creating laws tailored for specific individuals is bad legislative practice as it means that other people in similar situations do not get relief, thus denying them equal protection. However, private bills--bills specifically directed at a particular person or persons--are extremely common in the U.S. Congress, such that Rule XV of the Rules of the House of Representatives establishes a calendar that provides for the consideration of private bills on the first and third Tuesdays of every month.
  • The law was passed without a Senatorial quorum. Under Article One of the United States Constitution, a Senate quorum is necessary to conduct business. Since a quorum was not physically present in the Senate when the law was passed, some have argued that the law was unconstitutional. However, the rules of the Senate provide that the Senate may only ascertain whether a quorum is present with a roll call; any other method--such as counting--is forbidden by the rules, although any senator may demand a call of the roll at any time to ascertain the presence of a quorum. If a previous roll call has established the presence of a quorum, the rules provide that a quorum is assumed to be present until and unless a senator suggests otherwise. This practice enables the Senate to engage in debate and conduct less controversial business without requiring the physical presence of fifty-one senators in the chamber. Although occasionally controversial (as in this instance), both houses of Congress are given broad latitude to establish their own rules under Article One of the United States Constitution. No court has ever challenged this practice by striking down a law passed without the physical presence of a majority of senators in the chamber at the time of passage. No sitting member of the Senate objected either at the time or afterwards to the lack of quorum.
  • The law was a violation of the separation of powers. Many commentators argued that Congress had exceeded its powers by substituting its judgment for that of the courts and directing the courts on how to proceed. This argument was addressed by Judge Stanley Francis Birch in a highly critical concurrence to the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, given on March 30, 2005. Judge Birch, a conservative Republican jurist, declared that:
  • If the Act only provided for jurisdiction consistent with Article III, the Act would not be in violation of the principles of separation of powers. The Act, however, goes further. Section 2 of the Act provides that the district court: (1) shall engage in “de novo” review of Mrs. Schiavo’s constitutional and federal claims; (2) shall not consider whether these claims were previously “raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings”; (3) shall not engage in “abstention in favor of State court proceedings”; and (4) shall not decide the case on the basis of “whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.” Because these provisions constitute legislative dictation of how a federal court should exercise its judicial functions (known as a “rule of decision”), the Act invades the province of the judiciary and violates the separation of powers principle.
  • An act of Congress violates separation of powers if it requires federal courts to exercise their Article III power “in a manner repugnant to the text, structure, and traditions of Article III.” By setting a particular standard of review in the district court, Section 2 of the Act purports to direct a federal court in an area traditionally left to the federal court to decide. In fact, the establishment of a standard of review often dictates the rule of decision in a case, which is beyond Congress’s constitutional power. [1]
  • The law failed to create any substantive rights. The law enacted by Congress only obliged the federal courts to review the rulings of the Florida state courts to determine if procedural due process had been afforded. However, there was no serious argument that the Florida courts had violated any constitutionally mandated procedural requirements. Congress could have specified in the statute that the bill sought to enforce a substantive due process right to life, enacted pursuant to section five of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, the social conservatives who championed the legislation have been reluctant to rely on the rights created under this provision, as it has also been interpreted by the Supreme Court as providing the underpinning for the right to abortion and for refusal to receive life-saving medical assistance.

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] Cases and decisions

Some PDF files may be large and take time to download; alternate links provided in case one site is down or slow; "En banc" refers to the full court, not initial 3 judge panel.

[edit] Congressional record

Sunday March 20

Monday, March 21

[edit] Other

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/l/Palm_Sunday_Compromise_4119.html"