Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: defenderSD

Bush can shove his CFR; there will be massive resistance and disobedience to that piece of tyrannical nonsense. It'll die just like Prohibition, or American Revolution 2.0 will result.


306 posted on 03/20/2005 11:47:10 PM PST by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies ]


To: Hank Rearden

You're basically a libertarian Hank. That may not be your political party, but that seems to be your philosophy. There are actually a lot of libertarians in the US. They just don't know they're libertarians.


312 posted on 03/20/2005 11:49:03 PM PST by defenderSD (At half past midnight, the ghost of Vince Foster wanders through the West Wing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies ]

To: Hank Rearden

881503CONCUR v. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPT. OF HEALTH

No. 881503

[June 25, 1990]

Justice Scalia, concurring.

The various opinions in this case portray quite clearly the difficult, indeed agonizing, questions that are presented by the constantly increasing power of science to keep the human body alive for longer than any reasonable person would want to inhabit it. The States have begun to grapple with these problems through legislation. I am concerned, from the tenor of today's opinions, that we are poised to confuse that enterprise as successfully as we have confused the enterprise of legislating concerning abortion requiring it to be conducted against a background of federal constitutional imperatives that are unknown because they are being newly crafted from Term to Term. That would be a great misfortune.

While I agree with the Court's analysis today, and therefore join in its opinion, I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored. It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know no more about "life-and-death" than they do) that they will decide upon a line less reasonable.

Cruzan v. Director, DMH 497 US 261 (1990


317 posted on 03/20/2005 11:51:37 PM PST by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson