Only one of the three branches of our federal government (the Executive Branch) has been attempting to use the CSA as a weapon to disrupt Oregon's assisted suicide law. Another of the three branches of our federal government (the Congress) has refused on two occasions to provide the Attorney General with specific authority to use the CSA as a weapon to disrupt Oregon's assisted suicide law. Now the third branch of our federal government (the Judicial Branch) has just ordered the Attorney General to stop attempting to use the CSA as a weapon to disrupt Oregon's assisted suicide law without first securing additional Congressional approval.
I think that it's time to recognize that, at the present time, this case involves more of a dispute between the three branches of the federal government than a dispute between the federal government and the state of Oregon. If Attorney General Ashcroft can either (a) secure additional specific authority from Congress or (b) convince an appellate court that he already has Congressional authority, then we might have the opportunity to concern ourselves with any remaining constitutional dispute that may exist between the federal government and the state of Oregon. But for now, we have a dispute within the three branches of our federal government and it is the other two branches of the federal government (and not the state of Oregon) that are frustrating Attorney General Ashcroft's efforts.
That seems reasonable, but we must also acknowledge that there is a dispute between the law enforcement agent of the federal government and a state law. To dismiss it would be foolish. Disputes between the different branches of the federal government have been fairly commonplace since this nation's inception, and should not come as a surprise. The concept of a national bank, for instance, was the nation's first big issue, until its charter was not renewed in 1836 because of Andrew Jackson's belief that the Second National Bank was unconstitutional (even though the court thought it was). In other words, he believed that the bank lasted through 1836 without a constitutional mandate. Our nation was left without a central bank until 1913 and the Federal Reserve Act, which many people still believe is unconstitutional. So the question remains, is it or isn't it? Was it or was it not? Who decides? The courts, the President, Congress, or the people?
The point of the matter is what makes something lawful or constitutional is dependent on the Constitution and controlling legislation (if it is constitutional), not the courts and not an individual. That Andrew Jackson thought the Second National Bank was unconstitutional didn't necessarily make it so. A majority in Congress obviously thought it was, and the Supreme Court agreed.
In the case at hand, while Congress failed to pass an amendment specifically naming "physician-assisted suicide" as medicinally illegitimate, they left the wording present and open to interpretation by those who were charged with enforcing it. They could have, had they desired (although it would have to contradict the Constitution and Declaration by surrendering the federal government's Constitutional guarantee to protect life, I believe), instituted protections for euthenasia, but they didn't. That, I think, is just as important as fact that they failed to specify intentional killing as an illegitimate use of medicine, which it obviously is.