No state or nation has the right to kill innocent human beings, or the right to grant that authority either to an individual, a group, or a class of it's people. The 5th Amendment's due process clause, which recognizes the right of a person not to be deprived of LIFE, liberty, or property except by due process of law, was clearly written in the context of prosecuting persons accused of committing crimes.
The phrase "without due process of law" in that context cannot reasonably be interpreted in any other way except to deny government the power to take the life of a person who has not been found guilty of a capital crime through the due process of law. Due process of law clearly means a lawful trial by jury presided over by a duly appointed or elected judge, something the old sick people of OR will not be afforded before a physician violates his or her Hippocratic oath by administering the fatal dose.
If you want to argue that the BOR is a restraint only on the federal government's power, I refer you to the 14th Amendment which gives the same due process protection from deprivation of life to every citizen of every state of the US.
Except, according to today's USSC decision, old and sick residents of OR. The USSC has for the past 4 or 5 decades abandoned all pretense of interpreting the Constitution, now it simply rules by judicial fiat to achieve whatever end it believes is proper for the circumstances here and now.
"something the old sick people of OR will not be afforded before a physician violates his or her Hippocratic oath by administering the fatal dose."
That's not what's provided for by the Oregon law.
"No state or nation has the right to kill innocent human beings, or the right to grant that authority either to an individual, a group, or a class of it's people."
So America sending the bombers over Germany in WWII knowing that some innocent human beings would die, was that morally illicit?