Oregon Assisted Suicide Law
I feel a need to comment on the
assisted suicide decision, despite having not read all the details or all 62 pages of
the decision. But hey, isn't that what blogs are all about?
I think a very key distinction needs to be made here, and this is one case where, to me, it appears to be rather clear. Personal opinions and values are different than government-imposed values. For example, I believe very strongly in giving to charity -- and at the same time I think it's horribly, horribly wrong for government to "give" to charity.
There are no contradictions in that position -- people giving to charity is good. It helps the giver and the receiver. It is voluntary. Government "giving" to charity is bad -- the money is taken at gunpoint from one person and a small portion is given to another. Neither the giver or the receiver benefits.
With this case, I think the judges made the right decision. The Controlled Substance Act was about controlling the flow of illegal drugs. For the US Government to attempt to use this act that was designed to arrest cocaine dealers to overturn a law passed by the people of a state is just silly.
States should be able to do what they want in nearly all cases. The only exception is when those laws conflict with the U.S. Constitution -- NOT U.S. Code, but the U.S. Constitution. There's nothing in the Constitution that says you cannot kill yourself.
At the same time, I think this is a horrible law.
Now I wonder if the court would take the same view of another federal law that is almost identical -- Roe v. Wade (which has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, by the way, so don't go there).
Posted by: Ogre at
06:08 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Ogie:
"There's nothing in the Constitution that says you cannot kill yourself."
That is not the standard. The purpose of the U.S. Constitution is not to set limits on what people can do. The purpose is to limit government. Of course, that has been turned upside down over the past 100 years.
But there are a lot of things that the Constitution does not say. The Constitution doesn't say you can not eat broccoli. Is that the basis of my right to eat broccoli. No.
The theme of the Constitution is the individual rights of citizens. The Founders enumerated some of the rights in order to make some explicit. But just because a right to either do or not do something is not in the Constitution is not the standard. The overall standard is individual rights.
All the best..
Andy
Posted by: The Charlotte Capitalist at January 18, 2006 07:35 PM (jqUF+)
2
I agree with you. I also think it is stupid of conservatives to be upset that SCOTUS will not ban Oregon's physician assisted suicide law when murder is a crime left to the states. In other words, the state decides what murder is and how to punish it. Oregon has decided that assisting suicide is not murder and they aren't going to punish it. Do I disagree? Absolutely, but I am not an Oregonian, so it is none of my business.
Posted by: Echo Zoe at January 18, 2006 08:30 PM (K+h36)
3
That's what I was trying to say, Andy -- that since the Constitution does not prevent you from killing yourself, then it's not a Constitutional violation to do so.
Echo, I haven't seen any conservatives really commenting on this decision at all...
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 10:39 PM (+Gl1m)
4
I am more then willing to extend the law to all Democrats. Oops, that was very insensitive of me.
Realistically, like you said, there is nothing in the Constitution that says you cannot kill yourself. Nor is there anything that states that a State cannot pass a law alowing physician assisted suicide. And the USSC made the right decesion.
Posted by: William Teach at January 19, 2006 12:46 AM (IRsCk)
5
Nice one, Teach.
Yes, it's a really, really bad law, if you ask me, but the state absolutely has the ability to make that law without the interference of the federal government.
Now how is this any different than Roe v. Wade? Oh, right, in Roe v. Wade, the federal government had the same situation, but ruled the other way...
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 12:49 AM (+Gl1m)
6
Well, remember, to the Surrender Monkeys, it is not a living being till it is born. SO it is OK to "make a choice." But it is not OK to execute a a convicted criminal.
Posted by: William Teach at January 19, 2006 01:04 AM (IRsCk)
7
It's also inconsistent with any philosophy on feds vs. states...
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 01:26 AM (+Gl1m)
8
A lot of people have said that there is nothing in the Constitution saying you can't kill yourself.
To play devil's advocate .... There is nothing in the Constitution saying that you can kill yourself either.
Posted by: Machelle at January 19, 2006 01:43 PM (ZAyoW)
9
Ah, but that is NOT the purpose of the Constitution! The Constitution outlined specific rights that cannot be violated -- and that's all. It does not grant rights -- and SO many people today don't get that, including just about everyone on the left...
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 02:06 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
20kb generated in CPU 0.1759, elapsed 0.5923 seconds.
88 queries taking 0.5545 seconds, 198 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
