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.
Hopefully soon. It does not matter whether it is right or wrong. It is a States' rights issue. We need to decrease the role of the federal government and return the power to the States as the Constitution intended it to be.
However, that's unlikely because the Federal Government will get larger and larger until states become rather insignificant.
Not quite. Who's going to insure the terminally ill?
you are pathetic
"But Oregon's law covers only extremely sick people -- those with incurable diseases, whom at least two doctors agree have six months or less to live and are of sound mind."
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
LOL! Just because someone supports individual rights against RINOism, you think he's a troll?!?
From what I heard of the dissenting opinion, it was directed in part upon a non-hypocritical point--the NYT reported that Justice Scalia wrote: "If the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death."
But even still, the base point is that even if this were a reason to block the Oregon law, then it only illustrates that the Controlled Substances Act overreaches (even I see that, and I'm not a Libertarian). Which is it...is the CSA unconstitutional, or is Ashcroft's approach?
I shudder to envision the kind of situation that is being championed by so many here today in the name of states' rights; one in which the fundamental God-given rights to life and liberty are NOT unalienable and are NOT protected for EVERY AMERICAN by our federal Bill of Rights.
Over the long haul, all such a state of affairs can possibly produce is destructive disunion and bloody chaos.
It truly is a dark day in America, my friend.
Sad to see so many here championing the alienation of the fundamental right to life that our Bill of Rights is supposed to protect; and would protect still if our legal and political leaders bothered to pay any attention to its basic meanings anymore.
We need to get another judge on that court after Alito. Rush says once Alito is on "the Roberts court" that conservatives will rule the majority vote 6 to 3. I wonder how he thinks two of them will be swayed back to the right side? I'll be happy to get one of them to make it 5 to 4!
Wrong.
Do you think the right to freely assemble is also a states' rights issue?
How about the right to petition the government?
What about the rest of the rights that are spelled out in the Constitution?
For you to claim that any of those rights are subject to the whims of the individual states would be ludicrous.
How much moreso the 'First Right'; the right to life...
"...The relevance of such considerations was at its zenith in Raich when we considered whether the CSA could be applied to the intrastate possession of a controlled substance consistent with the limited federal powers enumerated by the Constitution. Such considerations have little, if any, relevance where, as here, were are merely presented with a question of statutory interpretation and not the extent of constitutionally permissible federal power. This is particularly true where, as here, we are interpreting broad, straightforward language, within a statutory framework that a majority of this Court has concluded is so comprehensive that it necessarily nullifies the States' "traditional...powers...to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens....The court's reliance upon the constitutional principles that it rejected in Raich -- albeit under the guise of statutory interpretation -- is perplexing to say the least. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent."
Ad hominem arguments are fellatious.
When did you become opposed to the death penalty?
Regarding States Rights, most liberals and conservatives are highly principled.
If the state agrees with their position, they are for States Rights.
If the Federal Government agrees with their position, they are for Federal Rights.
In America, life has always been unalienable, by government short of conviction on a capital offense, by others except in the case of righteous war and/or self-defense, and even by the individual whose life it is.
Giving our legal and societal approval to suicide, the alienation of one's own life, is a new and quite dangerous thing to do.
It is one more example of how far our legal and political elites have departed from the principles that founded this republic.
It is one more example of how we have lost our reverence for the Creator and for those He made in His own image.
I've never opposed the death penalty.
Capital offenses are covered quite nicely in the Fifth Amendment, thanks.
Too bad our legal community has thoroughly gutted that fine Amendment that lies at the heart of the Bill of Rights...
This is not about sex.
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.