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.
Fine I can accept this decision. But now let's apply the same standard to abortion, sodomy, medical marijuana etc. Leave the issue to the states.
That was different. There it whether federal law could trump state law. This one is whether the uncontested (for this case) current federal law supported Ashcroft's interpretation of it, and the justices decided it didn't.
In reading, this appears to only be a very slight victory for states, if one at all. There's clearly room for Congress to pass another law that quashes the will of the people of a state.
No one who is interested in a Free Republic should accept the "Federal Govt has to step in" rationale for unconstitutional abuses of authority.
One more Originalist and things will start to change.
"upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God"
Notice those words, "govern ourselves"? and "sustain ourselves"? and "upon the CAPACITY" He was not saying the 10 commandments were the law of the land and had to be enforced on us by the state.
Who said anyone had to accommodate my religion? You missed the part when I said it should be up to the states.
And if the states leave it up to individuals, that's even better. If people decide that their state shoud be in the business of killing let them suffer the consequences.
Presumably, if you are interested in a Free Republic, you'd be interested in helping restore the Constitution against "standard operating procedure".
"Fine I can accept this decision. But now let's apply the same standard to abortion, sodomy, medical marijuana etc. Leave the issue to the states."
Good luck with that. Everyone on the supreme court is a hypocrite, they are just hypocrites about different things. Just because some Justices were hypocrites about this case (usually against state's rights) doesn't change the fact that the other side (usually for state's rights) were being hypocrites as well.
Read Justice Thomas' separate dissent before you dismiss him as a hypocrite.
And more.......
William Blackstone defined the Law of Nature as "the will of the Creator ... such among others are these principles: that we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to everyone his due ..." Samuel Adams called the first law of nature "self-preservation," and states that, "no one ought to harm another in their life, liberty, and property. Every man as much as he is able ought to preserve the rest of mankind."
If I was termanally ill, I would want this option, I dont see why Conservatives are against this. Its your life.
"He was not saying the 10 commandments were the law of the land and had to be enforced on us by the state."
Wrong.
Jefferson wrote: "Man has been subjected by his Creator to moral law, of which his feelings, or conscience are the evidence with which his Creator furnished him ... the moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature, accompany them into a state of society ... their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation."
Because of the woeful side of human nature, the founders realized that a system of laws in harmony with God's divine law and a written Constitution were necessary to protect and secure the rights of those who were endeavoring to live in peace and harmony with their neighbors according to the dictates of the natural law of God.
"The founders' goal was to revive the ancient principles (these ancient principles Thomas Jefferson referred to as the laws and the representative government that were given by God through Moses to ancient Israel.)
From the example of the ancient principles of the Hebrews, Jefferson reasoned that God brought a people out of slavery and gave them a law for the good of society and the protection of individual liberty. This law known as the Ten Commandments contains four laws dealing with man's responsibility to God and six laws dealing with man's responsibility to man. Jefferson believed that the ancient Hebrew culture contained the pattern of privilege and liberty that the laws of nature and of nature's God entitled every man.
I agree. Plenty of Freepers who agree with you. Quite a diversity of opinion here actually.
And.....
The purpose of the United States Constitution was not to grant rights to the American people. The purpose was to establish a government of laws that would protect and secure each person's Creator- endowed rights to life, liberty, and property. As the Declaration of Independence states, "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."
Fine. Unfortunately many here on FR feel that physicians are totally responsible for everything that goes wrong with their patients and demand that our gov. step in to micromanage health care. I have seen it written too many times from supposed good conservative FRs.
One more and I shall take my leave...
"Government depends for its health on values that over the not-so-long run must come from religion. Human rights are rooted in the moral worth with which a loving Creator has endowed each human soul, and social authority is legitimized by making it answerable to a transcendent moral law. Without this, human rights are at the mercy either of selfish interests or established secular authority in which the self or society must finally be regarded as sovereign.
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.