So, Mr. Chief Justice, will it be us or them?

The Dispatch ^ | October 9, 2005 | John Beydler

[conservativebabe]

So, Mr. Chief Justice, will it be us or them?

Given his first case, we'll know soon enough if new Chief Justice John Roberts is with us or them.

It's a control case, a who's-in-charge case. Us or them.

The people of Oregon -- me and you, 'cept they live there and we live here -- have twice affirmed through referenda that if a mentally-with-it dying person wants to skip the last part, it's OK for the doctor to prescribe and the pharmacist to fill a fatal prescription.

The Oregon Legislature, being the servant of the people that it is, did the necessary paperwork in 1997, including the law providing that no criminal or civil penalty could befall the doctors and the pharmacists for their part in carrying out the dying person's wishes. Janet Reno, then attorney general of the United States, said in response to a question from Congress that it was Oregon's business.

All makes sense to most anybody who's sat with a dying relative or friend, and most of us of many years have done so. In such circumstances, I'm sure not gonna be the one saying, "oh, don't be silly ..." if there's a deathbed declaration that the time is now.

But I'm not John Ashcroft or Alberto Gonzales.

When Mr. Ashcroft ascended to the attorney general's office in 2001, he lost no time finding a way to thwart the people of Oregon.

His tool was a routine housekeeping chore assigned the attorney general by the federal Drug Control Act of 1970. The act requires docs and pharmacists to have a federal license to handle drugs; the AG's in charge of the licenses. Mr. Ashcroft parsed the wording of the license requirements, found meaning in phrases Ms. Reno hadn't divined, and announced he'd yank the license of any doctor or pharmacist who followed a patient's dying request.

The people of Oregon appealed and have won through the federal appellate court level. Mr. Gonzales, who's since replaced Mr. Ashcroft, carried the case to the Supreme Court. The arguments were the first heard by the Roberts court.

You should note here that the issue of great import to you and I -- the range of options available to us in the most of trying of exceedingly personal circumstances -- is not being argued, or at best peripherally.

No, the arguments are about what Congress meant with this phrase or that when it wrote the Drug Control Act 35 years ago, and how much control that grants a federal bureaucrat. Paper-shuffling stuff, when core human issues are on the line.

History dictates pessimism.

The question of balancing power between the states and the central government bedeviled us even as we became "us." It is the question that split the revolutionaries of the 1770s into political parties as they turned from guns to pens.

It is the reason they added the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution: 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.

The Tenth, of course, was the first of the amendments to become a dead letter, done in primarily by Congress's power to regulate commerce among the states, and the Supreme Court's 200-year-willingness to endorse ever broader definitions of "interstate commerce."

The court's also been mostly willing to endorse executive branch power grabs, like the one Mr. Ashcroft's launched.

So, Mr. Chief Justice Roberts, will your court continue the tradition?

Will it be us, or them?

------------------

Footnote: In the eight years of its operation, 208 people have used the alternative offered by the Oregon Death with Dignity law.

[Phantom Lord]

What does GOD have to say about it? What does HE think about suicide? It doesn't matter what WE think. But it matters only what God thinks

That may be true, but God isn't on SCOTUS, nor is he President, nor a member of congress or any elected body in the United States. And thus he doesn't right our laws or decide our constitutional issues.

He deals with us when we come to his house.

[Durus]

The second approach, though more limited, relies on the Federal government's powers under the insterstae commerce clause. Regardless of how that has been abused, it is a valid part of the Constitution. That principle allows the Federal government to regulate the uses that pharmaceuticals transported across state lines are used

A strict constructionist would never claim that the federal government had the power to regulate the use of an item simply because it crossed state lines. The commerce clause was intended to regulate trade between the states in a fair manner and a plain reading supports that. What one does with said item after the trade has occurred is no longer under the purview of federal regulation. In fact a plain reading does not indicate that the government has the authority to ban any items under the commerce clause.

[Rodney King]

What does GOD have to say about it? What does HE think about suicide? It doesn't matter what WE think. But it matters only what God thinks.

So you want the Supreme Court to ignore the constitution and debate what God thinks they should do?

[NJ_gent]

"Roberts has a chance to win my support here. I'm also interested in the opinions of Scalia and Thomas."

I strongly suspect Roberts will side with the Federal government. Scalia will do the same, which is a tad odd for him, but he's been leaning more Federal than Federalist lately. Thomas will definitely come out on the side of the state and its citizens. He'll also write an opinion that rips through every shred of possible argument for the pro-Fed side and he'll write it with Irish tact.

[Busywhiskers]

Actually I am not for regulating anything and everything...only those things with a legitimate connection to interstate trade.

"As for Oregon outlawing Catholic schools: Actually, its fine w/ me personally. And once again the constitution does not speak to that issue at all."

The constitution does, in fact, address that issue...the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment. My question is whether you have any limits to what a majority could impose via a ballot referendum. You don't seem bothered the majority trampling the religious rights Oregon catholics.

[Sandy]

It doesn't matter what WE think. But it matters only what God thinks.

God's opinion doesn't mean squat here. This is a legal matter, not a religious matter.

[Ken H]

Actually I am not for regulating anything and everything...only those things with a legitimate connection to interstate trade.

Does the Commerce Clause allow the Feds to regulate anything that may have a substantial effect on commerce among the several States, according to your view of the Constitution?

[Pessimist]

"The constitution does, in fact, address that issue...the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment."

I disagree. Reread it: "Congress sahll pass no law.." In the case you described, Oregon passed a law, not congress.

"My question is whether you have any limits to what a majority could impose via a ballot referendum."

As long as its the majority, and its constitutional (both in federal and state terms), I'm fine w/ it.

Aren't you? Or do you actually support judicial activism as long as the judges agree w/ your views?

[Pessimist]

"Actually I am not for regulating anything and everything...only those things with a legitimate connection to interstate trade. "

And to you, this case is one of them? What if the drugs came from Oregon? Would you be Ok w/ it then?

[highball]

Isn't crying to judges because they didn't get their way at the ballot box a lib tactic?

Medical Marijuana is just one example that proves you wrong. States can attempt to make it legal but the feds just squash them down.

Which is an unfortunate example of how the Feds can overrule state laws at whim. A sad display of Federal supremacy, which too many "conservatives" are willing to support, just because they don't like drugs. "Let the Feds expand the Commerce Clause as far as they want, so long as they don't intrude on my own personal preferences." is the road to ruin.

I'm not in favor of euthenasia, simply because I think it opens too many doors that will be hard to shut. But I don't think I have the right to tell the voters of Oregon what they can do under their laws. I don't think that a bureaucrat in DC has the right to dictate policy to the citizens of Oregon, either.

Liberty is not the right to make the choices I want you to make. Too many "conservatives" forget that.

[Phantom Lord]

Which is an unfortunate example of how the Feds can overrule state laws at whim. A sad display of Federal supremacy, which too many "conservatives" are willing to support, just because they don't like drugs.

Let me go on record and say I LIKE DRUGS!

Ok, well maybe I don't like them. But I do not believe they should be illegal.

And if one researches the history of drug laws in America, without fail the restriction and then banning of now illegal drugs are all rooted in racism and fear of minorities.

Whites fear of the "Cocaine Crazed Negro" started the anti-cocain movement in America.

[billbears]

Unfortunately judicial activism led to the 14th incorporating the 1st Amendment in a 1925 decision. I disagree with the rulings, as I do with any incorporations of the Bill of Rights, but you would first need a judge to reverse the precedent. See Gitlow in 1925 and Near in 1931. I believe those are the two cases

But you are correct. Original intent is the First was only to apply to the federal government. And until about 80 years ago, that's all it applied to

[Rodney King]

Aren't you? Or do you actually support judicial activism as long as the judges agree w/ your views?

That is very clearly the view of our opponents on this thread.

[Rodney King]

Whites fear of the "Cocaine Crazed Negro" started the anti-cocain movement in America.

That's right. The roots of gun control started with racism too. White Southerners didn't want freedmen getting guns, and New Yorkers wanted to keep them out of the hands of the Irish.

[highball]

Then that 'God-given right' should be enumerated as a constitutional ammendment. End runs are what the Left does and we shouldn't follow their lead.

You've got it backwards, friend. Rights are not enumrated in the Constitution. Federal powers are enumerated, and this doesn't appear in it.

The Constitution is clear - if it's not there, it belongs to the state. And that means the Feds have to leave Oregon's law alone.

[Just another Joe]

That's not entirely true; the Federal government ran a Nevada whorehouse for a few years after seizing it from its owner due to tax issues.

But they don't interfere with the laws of Nevada that make it legal.

He!!, the federal govt will take ANYTHING if you owe enough taxes, including your 1973 Pinto.

[ichabod1]

The doors are open wide already PL. And just because an elderly person signs a DNR doesn't mean some doctor, nurse, or younger relative didn't coerce or guilt trip them into signing it. They can *be* in their right minds and still be vulnerable to manipulation and intimidation. And that's why I'll NEVER lend my support to euthanazia.

[ichabod1]

I fear it may be impossible to pass a constitutional amendment in these latter days, one more thing that leads me to fear that the constitution is beyond repair.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both so very much for your posts!

For a Christian, suicide is a real defeat of faith because it essentially says the person does not trust God with his own life. Then again, a lot of Christians do have problems with faith in certain scenarios.

I'm not of the belief that suicide indicates a person is "not saved" but rather that a Christian may have given up the opportunity of an eternal life with treasure - by throwing away the opportunity to stand in faith in the valley of the shadow of death. (Note it is not death for a Christian, only the shadow of it.)

For those who are not Christian, suicide can be an "easy out". It may be for selfish reasons or to spare the family.

It is a very difficult moral issue and also a very difficult legal issue. It happens whether it is legal or not and the alternative to a lethal dose can be quite disturbing for those who find the body.

I do agree with betty boop that upholding Oregon on the 10^th could help to undo Roe v Wade.

Both of y'all have also pinged me to what appears to be a super-engaging discussion on the "wedge" thread. But today is my husband's birthday so this is all the time I have for now. I'll try to hop into the middle of it later tonight LOL!

[LexBaird]

The state isn't killing these people per se, but sanctioning doctors assisting in people killing themselves. Since those who are dying are the ones doing the killing and also giving their permission for the assistance, "due process" has run its course.

That is a fig-leaf sophistry. The doctors are killing them. Period. Don't euphemise euthanizing. If it was merely a matter of acquiring enough medication to achieve an unassisted O.D., there would be no need to involve M.D.s.

Moreover, the next step is inevitable, as has been shown in Europe; soon permission of the killed will be no longer required. Doctors shall merely have to declare their "Quality of Life" to be too poor to merit continued existence.