Whatever our position on this individual case of court ordered starvation, time has come to address the power of the judiciary as opposed to that of the other two branches of government. The teaching of the founding of our Country, how our Constitution came to be and what it really says is sorely lacking in our government schools. There was more involved than just the death of this poor, unfortunate woman. Interest groups and politicians have for decades slowly sold the people on the proposition that some human life has more "quality" than others. Is there a difference between a terminally ill person whose life is being prolonged by heroic effort and advanced medical science and a person, perhaps severely handicapped, who requires only sustenance?

You old military folks, particularly those of you who are drawing retirement pay or have service connected disabilities, might there come a time when your "quality" of life is determined to be such that life sustaining treatment of some level shall be determined not in the best interest of society? Now there is much talk of living wills, DNR's, powers of attorney and other safeguards. Remember, no matter what form is completed, there may come a time when the question may come before one person, perhaps elected perhaps appointed, who can negate your best laid plans.

We have allowed this power to the courts. The Constitution did not! It was the intention of the writers of our Constitution that the judiciary, being the least accountable to the people, be the weakest branch of the government. The judicial power was and is vested in one supreme court and in such inferior courts as Congress may ordain and establish. The supreme court, itself, decided that it was the sole arbiter of what was and what was not "constitutional." And to the detriment of our Country, Congress did not act at that time to protect its power and responsibility. Article III, Section 2, stipulates that the Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. If one were cynical, one might suspect that some of our politicians are comfortable with allowing un-elected judges, appointed for life, to make the tough calls by "finding" provisions in the Constitutions where none exist. One might suspect that some, knowing a Constitutional amendment would not be supported by the Congress or the people, might seek to work their will through an un-elected and unaccountable judiciary. In this case, the Congress ordered and the President signed a law that directed a federal court, inferior to the Supreme Court, to take jurisdiction and to hear law and fact. The Court refused. The debate must be joined and the role of the judiciary must be made compatible with the Constitution, by legislation or by amendment whichever is necessary.

Thomas Jefferson wrote as follows:

"It has long, however, been my opinion and I have never shrunk from its expression, ...that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow,) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advance its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all be usurped from the states, and the government of all shall be consolidated into one."

The views expressed in this article are those of Chief Bob Lusk. Had to add this. When I showed a printed copy to my wife she said, "very good; who wrote it?" I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.