| Flash Points USA III - God & Country - Ken Starr | ||
|---|---|---|
| This clip is not available for streaming at this time. Please contact WPA. | Tape Master: | 12324 |
| Catalog #: | 529548 | |
| Clip Number: | 529548-1 | |
| Orginal Film: | ||
| Timecode: | 01:20:44 - 01:30:21 | |
| Location: | ||
| Year Shot: | 2003 (Actual Year) | |
| Audio: | Yes | |
| Color: | Yes | |
| Headings: | JOURNALISM: Interview | |
| Description: | Flash Points USA III - God & Country - Ken Starr (raw footage form interview of lawyer Kenneth Starr) 01.20.44 Ken Starr speaking about Lawrence v. Texas case, Starr says "The issue of liberty and individual autonomy and especially sexual liberty and reproductive rights and the like raise perhaps the most sensitive and difficult questions in Constitutional law, even more difficult I think than some of the issues raised by the pledge of allegiance case. It's complicates, I would make these points: First, the term liberty is the fundamental, constitutional word that's being interpreted by the courts, we all enjoy a presumption of liberty. Well, does that mean for example if I as a person want to marry six women, that I'm entitled to do that, as long as each of the six women agree to it? Society has never permitted to my knowledge at least in western traditions polygamy. It doesn't even permit bigamy, even if the parties all consent. We can think of other examples of where society steps in and "interferes" with the liberties of others. So, yes I think that these are the kind of issues that should be debated and discussed by our representative bodies and that the representative bodies should be the ones that presumptively fashion our social policy." Continues to speak about the Griswold case. 01.23.47 Kenneth Starr is asked what his views on abortion as a legal issue, Mr. Starr responds "As a legal issue, Abortion, I view it as a matter of social policy, that the states and ultimately the Congress should resolve, and some states will go in one direction and other states will go in another. I know they're very thoughtful arguments to the effect that the unborn child, and I happen to view that unborn child is a life worthy of protection should not in fact be subjected to this kind of procedure, namely the illumination of that life. It's a very, to me respectable argument, but we're a long way away from that in terms of the jurists prudence. Roe v. Wade specifically held that the unborn child, the fetus is in fact not a person, yet at the same time we see with the Laci Peterson case charges being brought against Mr. Peterson for allegedly taking the life of his unborn son. You'd say well look at the gestation period and so forth, but is that life in the womb or some would say potential life in the womb worthy of legal protection? Historically, it has been." 01.25.28 Ken Starr speaks about the "ten commandments" court case, "The Judge Roy Moore case is a very intriguing case. Moses and the ten commandments are in the Supreme Court of the United States, so one might say doesn't the former Chief Justice have the same right? There's a very important difference, the presence of Moses in the ten commandments is part of the sculpture at the Supreme Court, is part of our legal traditions showing various lawgivers over human history. What Chief Judge Roy Moore did was quite different, he was an unilateral determination that he would bring into the court, not into his chambers, but into the court house where other justices sat, a particular monument that had not been historically placed there. I think the procedure was a but unfortunate, here that it was understandable the concern on his part that law has this kind of foundation, we should recognize that foundation, but in my own judgment it was a prudent act." 01.26.59 Ken Starr asked related to the Terry Schiavo case, is the right to die, a religious issue? Mr. Starr responds "The right to die set of issues return us to the meaning of liberty. That's what this is all about in a constitutional level. Yes, the right to die is a religious issue, it's a faith issue, it' a moral issue and people will come to that determination from a variety of perspectives. My own moral view is that life has sanctity, it has dignity and that we should be extraordinarily cautious in making a decision for someone, that he or she would want to have his or here life terminated. That's why we have efficatious mechanisms, such as living wills and otherwise so that the person can express in advance his or her will in terms of the termination of life. But, for an individual who is in a condition called the persistent vegetative state as we saw with the Supreme Court of the United States decided some few years ago the Nancy Beth Cruzan case, there was testimony in that case from nurses to the effect that Nancy Beth Cruzan in a persistent vegestative state acknowledged people, she would smile on her birthday when she was presented with a birthday cake, and so there were very grave I think moral and yes religious concerns with, do you terminate life because you believe life isn't worth living? That's why I think the disability community is rising up increasingly in righteous indignation and saying, please let's be protective of the dignity of life as opposed to comcluding, not the individual for himself or herself, but an outside person even within the loviong community of the family saying "I don't think Uncle Elmer wants to live anymore". There's just many dangers of abuse and the like that I think again, suggest that we should be very wary, very careful in terms of these "end of life" issues." 01.28.56 Ken Starr responds to question related to Legislature and morality. | |
WPA FILM LIBRARY
