Posted on 04/22/2002 7:28:24 AM PDT by humbletheFiend
Not without any kind of a hearing it can't. If someone acting in the name of the state does so, say a police officer, they are subject to arrest.
The Constitution does indeed frame our federal government, but it also lists some restrictions on the states and on persons. The Fifth Amendment states that in the United States of America, life must be respected. It is, of course, up to the local government to enact this edict into law an punish those who violate it. But the local government still MUST respect this Constitutional edict. It cannot absolve itself from this obligation unless it secedes from the union.
Therefore, the local governments are required to protect the right to life, liberty, and property, and punish all of those who take infringe on these rights without due process of law.
If you believe this to be true, you are extremely naive.
And after the person is dead, how is he supposed to prove that he did not make that choice.
If you wish to start questioning motives, then I wonder if what you want is what Jack Kervorkian wanted, to look in the eyes of someone who is dying to see life extinguished up close and personal. Perhaps you just love to kill, for the thrill of killing.
Go ahead and throw it out the window. Most people, however, would rather have its stipulations attached.
You wouldn't need to amend the constitution if you actually read the friggin bill of rights. The 9th amendment says that just because a right is not listed doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
You are correct, the Bill of Rights does not include all possible rights. It does, however, currently prohibit the taking of life without due process. In order to change this, you will have to amend the Constitution.
And it's not denying anyone life. It's making their last days on Earth bearable. The states are under no obligation to prosecute everyone for every action that results in way in someone dying. If they were then a lot of people would be on death row right now. No one would work in the defense industry for fear of a malfunction killing military personnel, no one would work in the embedded systems section of the computer industry, heh no one would work for tire manufacturers!
We're not talking accidents here (although, some accidents resulting in death can be prosecuted under law, such as deaths by drunk driving). We're talking about the government allowing the intentional taking of life. Currently, intentional killing is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. If you want it to be otherwise, you have a lot of work to do to overhawl the protections the Founders set in place. But go ahead.
No, and I'm not even saying that the Federal Government lacks the constitutional authority to adopt the Controlled Substances Act. That is a debatable matter.
What I am saying is that the scope of the Federal Government's legitimate powers are to be found in the Constitution and not in the Declaration of Independence. And I don't believe that to be a debatable matter.
So, it seems to me that anyone wishing to justify the position taken by Ashcroft with regard to Oregon's assisted suicide law should at a minimum include in the argument:
1) a reference to the constitutional provision upon which the Federal Government's right to legislate in this area is based; and
2)a demonstration that Oregon's assisted suicide law violates the Federal legislation.
My concern with Dr. Keyes' analysis is that it avoids these difficult hurdles by employing the Declaration of Independence as some sort of a short-cut. To hit a home run, a batter's got to touch all the bases. He can't just run out to pitcher's mound and run back to home plate.
Actually, to give your property away is to exercise your right of property. Your right of property is not just to hold something in your hand, it is to dispose of it according to your will. That, by definition, is what the right to own and control property is.
To follow your logic, you should be able to throw away your right to liberty. This, Alan Keyes also states, is impossible if this right is unalienable. For, if you throw away your freedoms, and you do everything you can to undermine the laws that protect your own liberty, you are not just affecting yourself, you are affecting all other persons.
No one can sanction the murder of an innocent life - neither before they have the opportunity to be born, nor those that for whatever reason choose to have theirs ended.
The pathetic attempt to justify it is an simply an escape for cowards - to assuage their own guilt while morally being able to claim that they did not kill themselves. Would any of them choose to stand before a firing squad to exercise their "choice"?
What was the name of that movie where people died at age 30 (willingly of forcefully)? "Logan's Run"?
I'm in favor of applying the Bill of Rights exactly as they are written. If you'll notice, the First Amendment applies only to Congress. The Fifth Amendment specifically applies to all persons and entities in the United States.
This was the wisdom of the Founders, and I thank God for it.
Not in this country it doesn't. And it doesn't depend on good men in government either. Try reading the Federalist Papers. Our system assumes selfish men, acting out of self-interest, and bound by law, would check each others naturally tendency to aggrandize power and wealth. To give any person the legal ability to snuff out the life of someone else, and then say that the victim requested it is to set up doctors of medicine as a kind of public executioners.
In Holland they started with a law much like the Oregon law. Then they started killing any sick person they wanted to who had not made a request to be kept alive. Now they are killing any sick person they want to even if they have requested staying alive. Killing is too profitable to allow the patients to interfere in the process.
Some of the phrases in the the Declaration of Independence are often used as make-weight ideological arguments in support of a constitutional analysis, but I don't think I've ever before seen anyone attempt to use it as a substitute for the Constitution in a constitutional analysis.
Another huge problem with this approach just occurred to me. The Constitution has provisions which allow for its being amended. By what authority could we ever amend the Declaration of Independence?
I don't see anything in the 5th amendment that says that it applies to private citizens.
Your right of life is not just to live it, but to dispose of it according to your will. That, by definition is what the right to own and control one's own life is.
To follow your logic, you should be able to throw away your right to liberty.
That's right. What do you think happens when one volunteers for the military?
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.