You agree? 
Posted on 06/08/2005 4:19:52 PM PDT by Crackingham
Does Oregon have the constitutional right to force the United States government to permit state doctors to assist patient suicides with federally controlled substances (narcotics)? Or is the federal government entitled under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to prevent these federally regulated drugs from being prescribed for lethal use regardless of state law? The Supreme Court will tell us soon in Gonzales v. Oregon, a case that will not only influence the course of the euthanasia and assisted-suicide debate, but will also profoundly impact the delicate balance of power between “states rights” and the overarching sovereignty of the federal government.
So far, court decisions have favored Oregon. Most recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Oregon’s right to regulate medical practice within its borders prevents the federal government from punishing state doctors who prescribe federally controlled substances to end their terminally ill patients’ lives. Under this view, the federal government can punish doctors who prescribe lethal doses of controlled substances for use in assisted suicide in states where the act is illegal. But punishing Oregon doctors would violate the principle of federalism because assisted suicide has been explicitly made a proper medical practice under Oregon law.
I have argued previously in NRO that it is actually the other way around — that Oregon is violating the principle of federalism by seeking to prevent the federal government from pursuing its own legitimate public policy. Now, this view has been substantially supported in the just-announced Gonzales v. Raich, in which the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the federal government is entitled to enforce the CSA’s proscription of the use of marijuana — even though California permits the drug to be possessed legally for medicinal purposes; even though the marijuana in question was clearly being used by California residents for such medicinal purposes; and even though the marijuana was unquestionably home-grown and exclusively used for in-home consumption.
Most of the issues dealt with in Raich involved arcane interpretations of the interstate commerce clause, a matter now unlikely to be crucial in deciding Gonzales v. Oregon. But the majority opinion, written (surprisingly) by Justice John Paul Stevens, also invoked the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause as “unambiguously” providing “that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail.”
As applied in Raich, this means that the federal government is entitled to enforce federal law against medical marijuana users even in the face of contrary state laws, a ruling clearly applicable to the assisted-suicide controversy. And if the Court found this to be true for medical marijuana — which, after all, involves mere symptom relief — it hardly seems likely that it would reach a drastically different conclusion regarding the prescription of more potent controlled substances with the intent to kill.
Of course. I believe the U.S. Constitution was written to define the limits of the federal (not state) government.
State constitutions define the limits of each state. That was the original intent of the Founding Fathers.
You agree?
William Terrell:
"I mean, do you agree with the concept of a "republic" in that its distinguishing feature is a constitution that defines the limits of the government within bounds?"
_____________________________________
Of course. I believe the U.S. Constitution was written to define the limits of the federal (not state) government.
State constitutions define the limits of each state.
That was the original intent of the Founding Fathers.
21 robertpaulsen
Absent federal laws to the contrary, the states are free to set their own. I've been consistent in my statements.
Yes. And those constitutions also define the rights protected.
It was the original intent of the Founding Fathers, clearly written, that all States have republican forms of government - wherein all judges & officials are bound by oath to support the US Constitution - notwithstanding any Thing in the Constitutions of any State to the Contrary.
Absent federal laws to the contrary, the states are free to set their own.
You: " -- believe the U.S. Constitution was written to define the limits of the federal (not state) government."
And that only: "State constitutions define the limits of each state."
I've been consistent in my statements.
Your own words quoted above show your logical inconsistencies.
Can you admit it?
No. The federal constitution defines the sovereign powers of that government, beyond which it is not to stray. In a positive list of grants to a government, all not listed are therefore not granted.
You agree?
force to permit. The author doesn't notice how absurd that notion is.
The power to regulate v. the power to prohibit
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1419654/posts
I agree.
In a similar case, don't you remember how California forced the United States government to permit state doctors to "recommend" marijuana to their patients?
"California in particular has been at the legal forefront on the issue. A 1996 voter referendum, the Compassionate Use Act, allowed marijuana use by those who receive "the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician."
"Federal health officials had told doctors who recommend or prescribe the substance could risk losing their medical license."
"A federal appeals court ruled against the government, saying in its ruling, "physicians must be able to speak frankly and openly to patients." The Justice Department then appealed to the Supreme Court."
"Supreme Court justices on Tuesday rejected the Bush administration's request to consider whether the federal government can punish doctors for recommending or even discussing the use of marijuana for their patients."
Do you agree?
I agree. Though I'm not familiar with any constitution that does that.
This one. By decision of the US Supreme Court.
By the same Court that recently struck down two highly publicized cases whereby it was concluded that Congress did NOT have the power to regulate commerce?
Oh, I see. The Supreme Court can determine what objects and activities related to those objects can be prohibited, even though, through their logic, any object can be prohibited, they can give a break to certain ones. That makes me feel better.
Since the Supreme Court is part of the republican government, too, what matters if they or Congress do the dirty deed?
Ever since Marbury v Madison, yes, the Supreme Court can determine if Congress exceeded its authority in Commerce Clause cases.
It is NOT true that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress "complete power of regulation and prohibition to the republican governemnt over every object, and activity related to that object, in the nation".
"Since the Supreme Court is part of the republican government, too, what matters if they or Congress do the dirty deed?"
I'm really not the one to talk to about these "conspiracy" theories.
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.