Replies

First, as I pointed out in an earlier post, phrases from the Declaration of Independence are often used to buttress constitutional arguments that are grounded in constitutional provisions. So are quotations from the Federalist papers, and even the Bible. But that is a much different thing than attempting to use the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist papers or the Bible as a substitute for reliance upon the text of the Constitution itself. So, while it is not unusual to find courts quoting from the Declaration of Independence, it would be very unusual (read unheard of) for a court to look to the Declaration of Independence for a description of the powers that have been constitutionally allocated to the U.S. Government.

Second, I think think that you may find greater support than you think for the notion that "moral truths" have a role to play in government and law. Any disappointments that you may have might be attributable to our occasional inability to gain universal acceptance of what is or is not a moral truth. On such occasions, we need to find a mechanism to resolve our differences and democracy is just one of the possible mechanisms. But, to be sure, democracy is not for everyone.

Finally, the court in this case did not have to reach the question of the constitutionality of this attempted application of the Controlled Substances Act because the court found that the CSA did not, as Ashcroft was contending, have any application to Oregon's assisted suicide law. In other words, it suggested that if Ashcroft wanted to utitlize the CSA to interfere with Oregon's assisted suicide law, the CSA would first have to be amended by Congress.

As to the first point, I believe that is precisely the case Keyes is making here, and the case for which we should all stand. The duties of government are clear, and one of those is to protect the lives of the innocent. As to your final point, as Dr. Keyes says referring to the Controlled Substance Act, "The legal question is clear enough. The interpretation of federal law cannot be dictated by state authorities. The interpretation of federal law is the business of the federal government, and the people who are competent to overrule federal authorities on such questions are the people of the whole nation, not of one state."

If you're looking for a specific statute, there it is.

The Controlled Substances Act prohibits physician dispensation of drugs for medically illegitimate purposes. It is a federal law, which means that its execution in the lives of the citizens of the nation is the responsibility of the federal government. Attorney General Ashcroft bears the weight of that responsibility and has rightly made the judgment that physicians cannot dispense federally controlled substances in order to end the lives of patients.

The wording of the statute implies that there must be some judgement taking place. For who is to decide what is or is not legitimate? Congress could do it, but didn't. If they did, unless they frame it in such a way that it is consistent with the just principles of good government, they are in effect usurping the authority of the Creator. That is at least partially how the Declaration is valuable to us, and it is the wisdom of the Declaration that Dr. Keyes reflects on to demonstrate how Mr. Ashcroft's decision was just and good.

Coupled with the authority granted to the federal government by the Constitution (and its duty according to the Declaration) to protect, if necessary and proper, innocent human lives, Atty. Gen. Ashcroft has all the authority he needs. This federal court blew it. I hope the Attorney General and the President continue to pursue it, and that they call on both the Constitution, federal laws, and the Declaration to justify their actions.