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.
But the issue here IS a state law, one that codifies and regulates the taking of innocent life. Oregon's "Death with Dignity" law makes the state an entity in the killing. By defending this decision, you are favoring government involvement in these questions of death.
That's not something anyone really wants, is it?
Such a stance is nonsensical.
So, using your logic, would it be 'constitutional' for you to cook up a statute that would make it okay for husbands to kill their wives if they wanted to? After all, there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent it, right?
The evidence is that I have been on this thread since approximately post 76 ... you "hopped on" at post 734. So it looks like you are the interloper. Gotta get on the freeway ... see you later. ;-)
There is NO Constitutional amendment that protects against murder. The first ten amendments, lest you forget, were passed to protect the individual FROM THE STATE, not the individual from other individuals. It was widely assumed that the 13 original states would have there own laws pertaining to homicide.
Something like that anyway, eh?!
Shall I take him/her "dinner" this evening, or perhaps a late night snack?!
President, monsieur, with a light Mosel?
If a state legalized murder I think the Feds would come in on a Civil Rights issue.
I was kind of disappointed with Thomas here. He properly threw a barb at the majority for flip-flopping from Raich. However, he voted AGAINST them on Raich - and votes against them here - which is puzzling in its own right. And he gave no clear rationale for his dissent, other than he didn't follow the majority's reasoning.
Guess I'll have to read Scalia's dissent to get the legal reasoning.
As long as we obey those laws, we will thrive. When we thumb our nose at them we will fall.
The Founders knew that. Conservatives know that. Which is why all three conservative Justices opposed this ruling.
We are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights, among which is life.
Yes. That is self-evident.
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.
Right.
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.
You are correct. They could not rightfully take that right unto themselves in any case.
The recipient of that life is the only entity which can cede that life to the state or other human beings.
I don't believe that anyone has the 'right' to 'cede their life' to anyone. Their life belongs to the Creator, not to themselves, their families, their community or the state.
Now the people of Oregon pass a law in violation of the Constitution of the US and the conservative supreme court affirms that usurpation.
This is certainly not a 'conservative supreme court'. This is a supremely RADICAL decision which flies in the face of everything this country once stood for.
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.
Certainly they didn't base it on any foundational principle of America.
Perhaps they are basing it in penumbras and emanations?
"Sounds like the right decision to me."
Based on what I understand of it it is. They are saying it is up to congress to set a law barring states from doing this. The executive branch cannot unilaterally make a decision like this without the input of the congress. I don't think they are saying that assisted suicide cannot be banned. As someone who believes strongly in states rights, I think it should be up to congress and not to the executive branch to make law in this country.
So, your assertion is that it is 'constitutional' for a State to legalize murder...
Right?
And you're quite adept at avoiding direct questions.
I don't think anyone has a right to "kill" an innocent person. I believe that I, not the government, should control how I end my life. If and when I am confronted with that difficult choice about the end of my life, I want to be in complete control. I don't want Ted Kennedy, or Bill Frist, or Nancy Pelosi, or you telling me what I can and can't do at the end of my life.
Evidently, you place more confidence in the federal government than I do. So I will ask directly for one last time: why? Are you so insecure in your faith and in yourself that you want the government to take this choice away from you? If you don't believe in ending your own life, I can understand and respect that. I you choose to make that decision for the rest of us, however, my respect for you ends.
If you want the federal government to have this kind of power over you, good for you. I won't be going along for the ride.
Oops. You are correct. That is what the Supreme Court SHOULD have ruled. It shows how far we are from having any Constitutionalists on the Court at all. (Looking at the dissent, it appears to turn on a disagreement with application of the Chevron doctrine, rather than any sense of limitations on Federal power.)
I am not sure I agree with suicide under these circumstances, (and I have not read the entire thread yet, so forgive me if I restate thinking I am being original), but I believe that this is a state law issue, not a federal constitutional one. That is, provided that the individual who's life is being lost is competent and in fact makes the decision. Don't get me wrong, I think the law is not a good one, only one that states have the right to make, just as the states have the right to outlaw this practice, and should have the right to outlaw abortion.
The original intent of the bill of rights was to protect the individual from the state. It was not intended to prevent murder, arson, jaywalking, rape, and public urination. It was common sense that the states would prosecute such matters.
Actually, THE STATE is not named in the 5th Amendment. That is the reason we have the 14th Amendment, to clear up the ambiguity.
But all along, by implication, all levels of government and individuals were always bound by the 5th Amendment's requirement to respect life.
The mention of life in 5th Amendment is a statement of principle, that the taking of innocent life is not to be found in the United States of America. Innocent blood is not to be shed by individuals, and not by the government.
Life must be respected, or society cannot function. States cannot make laws allowing the killing of innocents. The President cannot order the death of an innocent. Individuals cannot take life by their own hands.
Once we advocate blurring the lines, we're in trouble.
(Realizing that abortion blurred the lines, but only by unconstitutional judicial edict, and not by the will of the people.)
Our constitution is the ruling law of the land. It does not condemn those dying in great pain to continue to live.
There is nothing whimsical about this law.
That is not to say I approve of its passage merely that I see nothing in the Constitution that makes it unConstitutional. Any more than I see anything which makes Roe valid constitutional law.
Read the amendment again. It has NOTHING to do with the conduct of individuals, only the government.
You said: This ruling will set the stage for the euthanizing of the baby boomer's once they become to big of a burden on their families.
***
I disagree. The issues are as different as can be, provided that in the dr. assisted suicide, the individual makes the choice. We don't outlaw suicide (any more) when the individual can do it himself, as each person has a right to decide when his own life will end. I don't agree with this law, but I think it is a state's rights issue.
What the OR law allows is not the voluntary taking of one's own life, it allows murder by a physician using a specific method of killing. If a suicidal old person in OR asks you to smother him with a pillow you will be prosecuted for murder if you grant his request. But if you have "MD" after your name and give him a drug which will kill him you won't be prosecuted for anything. What's the difference? On a moral level it's still murder whether the OR law prohibits it or not.
I suppose another way to look at the issue is this, if the American people want to continue to legalize the murder of pre-birth babies, which apparently they do, they may as well legalize the murder of old sick people as well. I just wonder how long it will be before any type of "undesirable" or unwanted human being can be legally murdered in America the way they were in Nazi Germany.
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.