Posted on 01/17/2006 6:57:07 PM PST by AZRepublican
In a 6-3 vote, the Court ruled that the then U.S. attorney general exceeded his authority in 2001 by trying to use a federal drug law to prosecute doctors who prescribed lethal overdoses under the Oregon Death With Dignity Act, the only law in the nation that allows physician-assisted suicide. The measure has been approved twice by Oregon voters and upheld by lower court rulings. The core argument in the case was whether the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), enacted in 1970 to combat drug abuse and trafficking, allowed the attorney general unilaterally to prohibit doctors in Oregon from prescribing regulated drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide, despite state law permitting them to do so.
Justice Thomas rightfully pointed out the Court's double standard by recalling:
When Angel Raich and Diane Monson challenged the application of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U. S. C. §801 et seq., to their purely intrastate possession of marijuana for medical use as authorized under California law, a majority of this Court (a mere seven months ago) determined that the CSA effectively invalidated California's law because the CSA is a comprehensive regulatory regime specifically designed to regulate which controlled substances can be utilized for medicinal purposes, and in what manner.
Thomas concluded that 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." Justice Scalia cuts right to the meat of the issue by saying:
The Court's decision today is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the Federal Government's business. It is easy to sympathize with that position. The prohibition or deterrence of assisted suicide is certainly not among the enumerated powers conferred on the United States by the Constitution, and it is within the realm of public morality (bonos mores) traditionally addressed by the so-called police power of the States. But then, neither is prohibiting the recreational use of drugs or discouraging drug addiction among the enumerated powers.
The Controlled Substances Act hinges on faulty Court interpretation of the Constitution's commerce clause that reads: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." The power granted to regulate commerce between the States, Indian tribes and foreign countries is identical, and because this grant of power is identical across the board makes determining whether the Court is exercising proper constitutional interpretation easy. In the case of the CSA Act, the test of whether a law is constitutional or not under the commerce clause is determined by simply asking: Is controlling drugs by federal law within the States a equally valid law when applied and enforced within the Indian tribes and foreign countries?
If the answer is no, than the law is unconstitutional under the commerce clause. The federal government can restrict the import and export of certain drugs and make it a crime to do so, but is prohibited from any attempt to regulate the use within a State or a foreign country. A State may pass laws legalizing the growing and consumption of pot and the federal government has no constitutional jurisdiction to intervene. Only when a State authorizes by law for the exportation of pot beyond its borders may the federal government intervene to block the export.
Because Congress has no constitutional jurisdiction over private conduct within a State or foreign country, makes such laws as assisted suicide none of the federal government's business. Scalia had it right; he just didn't go far enough. In Gonzales v. Oregon, the core issue isn't the CSA Act, but the Court's own reckless disregard for the Constitution's commerce clause.
This argument is going exactly nowhere.
Well, the words and phrases of the Constitution now mean what five justices on a given day decide it should mean. In Raich, the majority said federal power was supreme when it came to the Controlled Substance Act. In this case, the majority said it wasn't.
So at the end of the day, the majority said the CSA didn't prohibit a doctor from prescribing drugs that could kill someone. But it did prohibit a doctor from prescribing pot that could make someone feel better.
And that's friggin' sick, above and beyond the Originalist arguments that should shoot all of that nonsense down.
>This argument is going exactly nowhere.
I am sure liberals will give you a applause.
Commerce clause chat is going nowhere. Its broad scope is "settled law." It isn't going to change much, except at the edges.
Cheer up. It is only a statutory construction. SCOTUS has already held that there is no Constitutional right to die. I am not sure I agree with that given other precedents by analogy, but whatever.
For now, yes.
But much can be gained over pointing out the recent inconsitencies over applying such.
mark
>Commerce clause chat is going nowhere.
Then why has the Supreme Court been giving it ever more critical attention in last few years?
And all commerce is theoretically interstate. I'm sitting at a locally owned coffee shop right now. I'm drinking coffee that I bought at this locally owned coffee shop. But the beans to make that coffee were not locally grown. Crazy stream of commerce.
Justice Thomas' opinion in the case is worth reading.
The above illustrates the culture of death that has been promulgated across the medical profession. It is like the idea that it is okay to sign a statement saying you don't want to be resuscitated. That statement doesn't cut across the grain of their values. However, try finding the paperwork that would state the opposite, that you want them to do everything in their power to keep you alive. That statement doesn't align with their values.
When the media portrayed the reaction to the decision of one of the ladies suffering from cancer, she didn't say anything about states' rights. So her suffering will be relived? There aren't other medicines to accomplish that goal? Nice how they call it medicine when the goal is death.
Actually the last case that nullified a Commerce Clause-based law was United States v. Morrison in 2000 when the SCOTUS invalidated parts of the Violence Against Women Act.
Gonzales v. Oregon: Right Outcome for Wrong Reasons
I realized that yesterday. At least I feel better having disagreed with the known conservatives on the court. I agree with their reasoning, but I also agree with the outcome, and thought the Raich case should have gone the other way too.
Screwy world.
D'oh. Thought that case was decided in 2000 for some reason. That must've been the Violence Against Women Act case I was thinking about. Got the years mixed up.
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.