Posted on 01/17/2006 7:07:26 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
BREAKING ON THE AP WIRE:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has upheld Oregon's one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.
It is hardly a conservative position to assert that "protecting citizens from themselves" is a fundamental responsibility of government.
Hey, I'll stand up tall and proud and say I really thought that was in the constitution. So shoot me.
I've been corrected, and very surprised, and I appreciate the correction. Way I figger, if I got mixed up on that, yea somebody who participates regularly on a web site that is about freedom, etc, then I bet plenty of people do.
Now the rest of you can go on with the beatings followed by pats on the back at how smart you are, or you can smile and say you were glad to help.
I really am glad to know this, btw. And now that it was mentioned, give me a little credit, I do recall it was the first words in the DOI.
=====
I quote my own prior post. Guess you didn't choose the underlined part.
Thanks! Thomas nailed it! Woo-hoo!
Well, at least in part. I'm sure there's more.
The states who choose life will stand in stark contrast.
In leaving it a matter for the states we find out who stands for righteousness and who stands for death.
Whatever... you watch a loved one in the final days of advanced cancer. You watch a person you loved, who lived with dignity and strength and courage, spend their last days shitting and vomiting and pissing all over themselves... you watch a loved one scream in agony day after day, because the morphine just isn't working anymore. You watch a loved one wither away to about 65 lbs, go blind, and have a massive stroke. You watch a loved one suffer for months on end. Then you can tell me that whether or not it is inhumane to allow them to die on their terms.
This has nothing to do with God. If a God existed, He wouldn't allow such pain and suffering. To Hell with God.
so your arguing that all suicide jumpers should just be left alone?
maybe at most clear the area under them so they don't fall on anyone?
And I guess you are also arguing that if someone you loved ... your child or wife or whoever was depressed and was holding a gun to their head... that you'd say "go ahead! it's your life!"
Elderly citizens of Oregon should be afraid...very afraid. Especially if they have any wealth to distribute to their heirs.
no one is arguing against pain medication.
"And I guess you are also arguing that if someone you loved ... your child or wife or whoever was depressed and was holding a gun to their head... that you'd say "go ahead! it's your life!""
Yes, depression and an excruciating terminal illness are exactly the same, you have shown me the light.
I find it ironic as well that the justices who typically fight for states rights are saying that the federal government has the authority to pass laws regarding suicide (for some strange reason, I cannot find suicide mentioned anywhere in the constitution but hey, why should the SC start paying attention to the tenth amendment). The majority, who has proven time and time again that they don't value states rights, suddenly uses states rights as the deciding factor.
In other words, constitutionality is not an absolute, but is based on outcome. Federal Government has a right under the constitution to regulate interstate commerce, as it relates to dispensing drugs, but SOMETIMES the constitution doesn't allow that, such as when it's administering drugs to kill people if they are really sick and everybody thinks they should die.
I don't know whether I want the federal government passing a law overriding state assisted-suicide laws, but I'm pretty sure I believe the constitution allows the federal government to do so, and I'm pretty sure the existing laws regulating the dispensing of prescription medication has a clause in it covering the valid uses of medication.
Now, it could be that Kennedy is saying that Ashcroft mis-applied that law. If so, that would be an OK decision, because it wouldn't be a constitutional issue, and the congress could pass a law to cover this specifically.
Anybody know if this is a statutory ruling or a constitutional ruling?
See you at the March for Life in DC this Monday Jan 23rd
Yes, that would suggest that the issue is statutory, not constitutional, and that the majority is simply saying the federal drug laws DO ban marijuana, but do NOT ban use of drugs for suicide.
Might make perfectly good sense to some, but ya'll gonna have to 'splain it to me.
I know you are being sarcastic, but there really is no difference, people who are terminally ill get depressed and think of giving up the same as anyone else.
Who's to say that given the chance they wouldn't snap out of their funk and try to live.
Many people who are diagnosed to die in less than 6 months live full healthy lives (my Aunt included which was told that in her teens, and lived into her 50's"
The full opinion, in PDF format, is available at http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/17jan20061050/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-623.pdf
I was responding to the earlier case (1992) that you cited, NY vs. US.
I have to do my laundry now. Maybe I'll get back to this later.
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.