Prepare for zot
Posted on 10/05/2005 6:03:52 PM PDT by wagglebee
Rush handled this brilliantly today.
Excellent discussion.
The assisted suicide law in Oregon is an abomination. It undermines the whole medical profession. It violates what the founders called the "UNALIENABLE right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Unalienable means that you can't take it away or relinquish it even if you want to.
You can't stop people from killing themselves if they really want to do so. But you don't have to sit there while they pervert our medical and legal systems so they can commit suicide a little more comfortably and conveniently.
States don't have the right to violate the basic fundamentals of the constitution. What if it was the right to free speech? The right to go to church? The right to bear arms? The inalienable right to life is even more basic than these.
Rush is simply wrong.
Murder is not a Constitutional issue. He may want the Federales to protect "life" but his want is no different from someone else "wanting" the Court to protect pornography (or pick your favorite left-wing "right").
The bottom line is that if the Court decides this then we have one law for the entire United States. If Oregon and its voters decide instead we have one State getting it wrong, and if they get enough wrong people will avoid Oregon. (Note that it could be a Federal issue if Oregon doctors kill out-of-staters, but I don't think this is the issue here.)
ML/NJ
Count me in the states' rights crowd on this one. Roe v. Wade should be overturned on this basis too. The tenth amendment was abadoned long ago I guess.
Interestingly, Justice Scalia, a devout Catholic, said in a lecture here at Lewis and Clark Law School, "You don't see me complaining abou the Oregon law." He said that for the same reasons although he no doubt finds the Oregon law as disturbing as I do. I wouldn't be surprised to see Scalia uphold the Oregon referendum. I WAS surprised, however, that he didn't side with Thomas on the California medical marijuana case last term.
Unless you think of "life" as somehow different from "pornography."
Prepare for zot
I love Scalia's brilliance, but he's not quite as consistent or gutsy as Thomas.
No. Unless you want to recreate the Constitution in your own mind. Madison and the boys knew about murder. They didn't give the Federal Government jurisdiction over murder, and then they emphasized the point with the tenth amendment. If you (and Rush) think murder should come under Federal jurisdiction, then you ought to support and amendment to the Constitution to that end. Anything else is simply disingenuous.
ML/NJ
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons,... shall not be violated...”
Article the seventh [Amendment V]
“No person shall... be deprived of life, ... without due process of law;...”
Damn! I missed the troll (my modem crapped out for a minute), what did he say?
These are restrictions upon the government(s), not the people. We went 200 years without anyone considering murder a federal issue. As far as I am concerned that means that it is not a federal issue. And the fifth amendment you quoted also says people should not be deprived of their property. Your logic would make poker games a federal crime.
ML/NJ
Your typical Bush basing from the Left. Even had the tagline "Is the children learning". So typically DU.
I heard Rush on this topic today and I thought he was brilliant.
Yes, and it includes the right to end your own life if you want to.
Nowhere in the constitution is the federal government given the power to decide state criminal law. It was only recently that there were *any* federal crimes for homicide. This is an area where the various states have all the constitutional power other than that which belongs to the individual.
Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824
[State] "Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass."
"No direct general power over these objects is granted to Congress; and, consequently, they remain subject to State legislation."
Constitutional issues being argued before the Court, and involving the 10th Amendment and the Commerce Clause, are merely abstractions?
The "state laboratory" approach isn't the plan of the Founding Fathers,
Didn't Founding Father James Madison say that the powers of the federal government were few and defined, whereas State government powers were many and broad? I could have sworn he wrote something along those lines. If he did, then I think it's fair to say Mr. Madison would disagree with you.
but rather a plan of early 20th Century progressives looking to establish socialism incrementally.
Horse hockey. The Progressive era gave us the income tax, and took selection of Senators away from State legislatures. The 16th and 17th Amendments, ratified in 1913, added to the power of the central government at the expense of the States. It made the New Deal and Great Society possible, IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.