Constitutionally, the federal government lacks a general police power. Because of this, the federal government doesn't even have jurisdiction over actions universally recognized as crimes such as murder or rape, and there certainly is no right to commit those things.
Furthermore, rights are not violated when an individual gives consent.
If you enter a person's house without their consent, the crime is trespassing.
If you have sex with another person without their consent, the crime is rape.
If you take another's property without their consent, the crime is theft.
If you kill another person without their consent, the crime is murder.
A person most certainly retains rights against trespass, theft, rape and murder, however once consent is given, the right is not violated.
Ironically, in the name of rights, the state is depriving a person of their right, the right to consent.
My take on the purpose of the article is to show that even the most esteemed conservatives can sound like liberals where states rights are concerned, so long as the central government is doing something they happen to like.
Do persons have an inalienable right to hire another person (a doctor, or a non-doctor) to kill them? If Right is the correlative of duty and wherever one has a right due to him, some other must owe him a duty, then who is it who owes a duty to that person, and what is the duty?
If persons have an inalienable right to hire a contract killer for such purposes, is the contract assignable?
If the right is inalienable, do minors have the right to enter into such contracts?
Cordially,