The Bill of Rights delineates God-given unalienable rights.
God gave them, and no man, even in a black robe, can rightfully take them away.
Life is the foremost of those rights, for without that right, all other rights are moot.
Your claim that this is somehow a usurpation by the federal government is specious and silly.
Inalienable rights yes but for the life of me I can't seem to find these inalienable rights in the Bill of Rights. I see limitations against the national government, and wait yes I see the Tenth Amendment. I know the history of Republicans and how much you hate that little one but what does it say again? 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' And for the life of me, I don't see determining where life ends and death begins listed as a power of the national government in the Constitution.
Please also don't point to the 14th either. She was afforded due process, as the unConstitutitional Republican action to move it to the federal system confirmed time and time again in multiple courts.
Your claim that this is somehow a usurpation by the federal government is specious and silly
Specious and silly? What do you not understand about these two statements?
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
---------------------
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.
I assert only that the Constitution has nothing to say about the subject. To raise up a constitutional right here, we would have to create out of nothing (for it exists neither in text nor tradition) some constitutional principle whereby, although the State may insist that an individual come in out of the cold and eat food, it may not insist that he take medicine; and although it may pump his stomach empty of poison he has ingested, it may not fill his stomach with food he has failed to ingest. Are there, then, no reasonable and humane limits that ought not to be exceeded in requiring an individual to preserve his own life? There obviously are, but they are not set forth in the Due Process Clause. What assures us that those limits will not be exceeded is the same constitutional guarantee that is the source of most of our protection - what protects us, for example, from being assessed a tax of 100% of our income above the subsistence level, from being forbidden to drive cars, or from being required to send our children to school for 10 hours a day, none of which horribles is categorically prohibited by the Constitution. Our salvation is the Equal Protection Clause, which requires the democratic majority to accept for themselves and their loved ones what they impose on you and me. This Court need not, and has no authority to, inject itself into every field of human activity [497 U.S. 261, 301] where irrationality and oppression may theoretically occur, and if it tries to do so, it will destroy itself.
One statement is by the 'Father of the Constitution' James Madison from Federalist #45, the other by a conservative Justice on SCOTUS whose statement was used in the Wolfson report to Gov. Bush. So James Madison and Justice Scalia agree. Let's see James Madison, Anton Scalia, the aspect of federalism.....or your statement with no foundation.
Your claim that this is somehow a usurpation by the federal government is specious and silly.
It's not a claim, it's a statement of fact that has support from the highest court in the land as well as one of the Framers. But hey what could they know against the opinion of the illustrious Alan Keyes? You offer such a 'strong' argument, I just don't know....nah, I honor the Republic and the ideals the Framers established, not a government run on emotional whims with no Constitutional foundations and questionable faith based foundation to boot