Editor's Note: This article was previously written by Jeffery J Cole. I asked him to submit it to Fire Society, even though the events he discusses in the article are no longer current events, since I believe the difference between a "Right" and a "Freedom" is still invaluable to us as a Society who strives to help establish Freedom around the world.

"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness...That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

"There is a fundamental difference from the Right to choose and the Freedom to choose." Jeffery J. Cole.

A Right is the agency from which a person may choose freely the direction of his life with impunity; and deserving of security by legal protection and from legal abstraction. However, the "right" to choose death does not exist anywhere within the maxims of Law. That right still remains within the omniscient wisdom of Deity. GOD decides who dies and who does not, even outside the sphere of free agency, modern medicine, state statute, physical laws of science, or civil circumstance. The "right to die" has never been endowed upon mankind. Respective of the fact that we all die, his only Right is to live. Now, he may be free to take his life, and indeed, a legal system may grant that wish. But, there is a difference to be endowed with a Right to choose and possessing independent freedom of choice.

Moreover, the absence of a right does not exempt freedom of choice. We have the freedom to choose life, and likewise, we have the freedom to take life. The difference, however, is that if we take life, there is a consequence and any decision that constitutes a consequence is not within the purview of an ordained Right. And since a Right to life is immune from consequence, then, assuming a right to death would be counterintuitive since there exists the suffrage of consequence in that choice.

Neither Michael nor Terri Schiavo have the right to choose death. They are free to, if they like, but they would be subject to the Justice of our "Creator" -- who has never endowed a "right" to die. Since there is impunity with the right to live, Governors of State and the President of the United States have executive authority to pardon and secure the life of Terri Schiavo against enemies, both foreign and domestic; ESPECIALLY from domestic enemies in government who seek to take it. The Law justifying executive action is no less found in the Supreme Law of the Land as annunciated in the Declaration of Independence. If the Constitution is the door for which the Rule of Law is opened, then the Declaration of Independence is the hinge upon which the Constitution swings and by which Executive Authority must pay homage.

My point: Just as we see a lack of use of executive authority in a case securing the Liberty of a boy whose mothers' dying wishes were defied, her grave spat upon, we now see, in the same State no less, executive authority cowering to the exercise of that power to secure a Life.

What is really uncanny about both cases is the spirit of Florida law, ultimately sealing the fate of both Elian and Terri: the law which grants power of attorney to the spouse if the other is dead...or incapacitated as in the case of Terri Schiavo. I remember the argument of jurisdiction in the case of Elian. It was a mess. And yet simply, executive authority as granted to the President by Article II section 2 in the U.S. Constitution, to extend "reprieve" by securing Elian's liberty and Terri's life could have easily been exercised and justified.

Threatening the "tranquility" of the United States as failing to secure the Life and Liberty of these Icons will result in three things: It compromises the security of our Rights as has been prescribed to our institution of government; and it polarizes the People, confusing and hence, redefining what constitutes a Right from a choice, resulting in a tainted perspective of Liberty. The public Trust has been betrayed first, by refusing to act in defense of a boy's liberty, and second, by refusing to act in defense of a young ladies life. My God Man! What is next? The pursuit of Happiness? By already obscuring the Right to Life and Liberty, there can be no "pursuit of Happiness."

Jeffery J Cole
Arrow Associates