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.
" No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
It says nothing about voluntary suicide, does it?
Try reading the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.
They protect innocent human life.
Well, at least they once did.
However, there are entire books of philosophy written on the question of the difference in moral culpability for accidents versus purposeful incidents.
What we have are judges who know an innocent person will die using the judicial process to protect a class of professional assasins.
That's always wrong.
Would you care to document your charge ... or are you in the habit of false accusations?
In other words, no person can be deprived of life without being duly found guilty of a crime.
I hope you realize the danger of your argument, that the 5th Amendment does NOT protect innocent life. Stop for a moment and reflect on line of reasoning.
".... due process of law ...." is frequently dispensed with by Liberals these days.
Interesting oxymoron.
"There is NOTHING in the constitution that either prohibits nor advocates the voluntary taking of one's life."
Welcome to Animal Farm.
Where some animals are more equal than others, depending on which pen you're in...
The Constitution restricts what the government can do, not what people can. Thats what everyone is confusing. If you want the Federal govt or a State govt to pass a law then you need a compelling reason and it cannot infringe on someones freedom. It would seem to me that your right to control when you die would outweigh any interest the govt could possibly come up with.
This was a good, pro-freedom/less govt decision.
Unless Bush can get one more Justice seated after Alito, the court will be split 5-4 in favor of the death cultists for another decade or more on all cases involving life or death issues. I don't think there are any viable Republican presidential contenders for 08 who would appoint pro-life Justices if they're elected. And if a Democrat wins, of course only people at least as liberal and pro-death as Ginsburg and Stevens will be appointed when openings come up.
If the Repubs lose 1 or 2 Senate seats in this year's election Bush may not be able to get a pro-life replacement confirmed even if Ginsburg or Stevens retire while he's still in office. IMHO, the outlook is pretty grim for the USSC ever having a majority of pro-life Justices anytime in the foreseeable future.
The evidence is before us.
It protects us from THE STATE taking our lives without due process (ie capital cases). It DOES NOT prevent us from taking our own lives. Most cases pertaining to the "taking of innocent life" are already well covered by statute in all 50 states and all of our colonies, er, "commonwealths"/territories as well.
Yes, and the next justice most likely to retire after Ginsburg and Stevens is probably Scalia, and that's probably at least 15 years away.
See 661 and 674. The Fifth prevents THE STATE from taking innocent lives without due process.
Frankly, if you want to die, go ahead. I'm not going to stop you. On the other hand, I don't believe it is morally, or Constitutionally acceptable, for you to entice someone else to participate.
Nope. It was an abandonment by the United States of America of thousands of years of observance of the morality of Judeo-Christian civilization.
Thats the same for abortion. The Constitution does not protect the "right to life" from other people, only from the govt. If you want abortion illegal you have to pass a law. You won't find that abortion should be illegal in the Constitution, only that the govt can't force an abortion.
We are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights, among which is life.
That inalienable right was not and has never been granted to the federal government, and so it is retained by the recipient of life and retained.
Now, I have not read the Oregon constitution, but I believe it is safe to say that the state has not been granted authority of that life.
The recipient of that life is the only entity which can cede that life to the state or other human beings.
Now the people of Oregon pass a law in violation of the Constitution of the US and the conservative supreme court affirms that usurpation. From whence does the state of Oregon and the Supreme Court say they derive their authority. If it is higher than God, I need to know.
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.