[Iconoclast2]

What the Supreme Court has just ruled is that the Federal government's authority is limited, just as our Christian Founding Fathers intended. The problem lies with the State of Oregon, not the United States, which has no business telling doctors what to do. Where in the Constitution do you see the "regulate doctors" clause?

[Halls]

Yes, well Euthanasia is illegal and sometimes the Federal Govt has to step in when a state is doing something illegal and totally wrong.

[djf]

What the Supreme Court has just ruled is that the Federal government's authority is limited, just as our Christian Founding Fathers intended. The problem lies with the State of Oregon, not the United States, which has no business telling doctors what to do. Where in the Constitution do you see the "regulate doctors" clause?

Agree 100%. If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd hear hundreds of FRino's screaming about judicial activism.

Just because we may not agree with any particular law, that does not make it the Federal Government's business.

And THAT IS WHY Roe V. Wade should have failed, not on a privacy basis, and not on a cooperative federalism 14th amendment type basis either.

[tertiary01]

Where do you get this? The licensing agencies, both State and Federal, tell doctors what to do everyday of the week. Might not be in the constitution but it is standard operating procedure in our current "health care system".

[AuH2ORepublican]

"What the Supreme Court has just ruled is that the Federal government's authority is limited, just as our Christian Founding Fathers intended."

---

Actually, no. The case was *not* decided on the grounds that Congress is not authorized by the Commerce Clause to regulate drugs used for assisted suicide. The Court said that Congress had not intended for the federal law to authorize the Attorney General to decide what is a proper use for federally regulated drugs. That's why Justice Thomas, who has argued for stricter interpretation of the Commerce Clause, was in dissent here.

This leaves open the possibility that Congress could pass a law banning the use of federally controlled drugs in assisted suicides.

If you don't believe me, read the following paragraphs from the posted article:

"The administration improperly tried to use a federal drug law to pursue Oregon doctors who prescribe lethal doses of prescription medicines, the court said in a rebuke to former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

The 6-3 ruling could encourage other states to consider copying Oregon's law, used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people in that state. The decision, one of the biggest expected from the court this year, also could set the stage for Congress to attempt to outlaw assisted suicide.

"Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority - himself, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer."

[LibertarianInExile]

"What the Supreme Court has just ruled is that the Federal government's authority is limited, just as our Christian Founding Fathers intended. The problem lies with the State of Oregon, not the United States, which has no business telling doctors what to do. Where in the Constitution do you see the "regulate doctors" clause?"

I would agree with a ruling like that, but that is not this ruling. The majority RETAINS federal jurisdiction, going nowhere to the extent you claim in overruling the AGs interpretation of the federal law. Read Scalia's dissent. He feels, as I do, that the majority was simply wishy-washing their way around a ban on assisted suicide but not ballsy enough to actually follow their own logic regarding legalization--so they ensured they could always back off in the event some state legalized morphine for addicts.

Gutless leftists. Absolutely GUTLESS. Won't legalize, won't support states' rights, unless it's for their pet causes. Of course, we have plenty of conservatives on this thread who feel the same way, witness their bitching about the idea that a state might make its own decision on euthanasia when they have federalized their thinking on euthanasia, while they're all for overturning a SCOTUS ruling that federalized liberal thinking on abortion.