Posted on 10/10/2005 9:31:15 AM PDT by conservativebabe
The Feds think that everything is Interstate Commerce. I was on a grand jury in CT once. They were wanting to charge someone with a gun crime. They pointed out how it was there perrogative to do so because the gun was used in interstate commerce. Later on, then I pointed out that the gun in question was a Colt and was made in CT, and posessed in CT, so that it was not a part of interstate commerce, the ATF guy came right back with "well the iron ore that went into making the steel" did not come from CT.
" I don't understand what's libertarian about people who want to kill themselves forcing the government to get involved"
I don't think they are. The gvt is injecting itself into the issue at the behest of people who want it stopped.
"When the state says that it is lawful for special group x to commit act y, that is license."
Right now there's no law against shaking someone's hand. Does that mean the gvt "licenses" you to shake hands?
Why don't you just admit: "I don't care what the constitution actually says here. I think doctor assisted suicide is wrong, and I want the Feds to put an end to it whether they have a right to or not."
With all due respect, my own mother died from cancer in a hospital, and she was given Morphine in her last days that not only took away her pain, but also her consciousness. I don't think there is a hospital in this country where patients must suffer pain without relief, even if it's relief to the point of Morphine-induced coma.
And I don't disagree with you that there are situations where people ought to have some choice in that... but don't abandon reality in search of a good argument. We saw that happen in TOC (that other case)
The Feds have no constitutional authority or interest in the dispensation and use of federally regulated medications?
If that is true, then the federal government has no constitutional authority in regulating drugs in the first case.
Apprently that's what AndyJackson thinks.
And this law makes it legal to take a human life, or "end" it, if that's the language you want to use.
Legalized killing.
"At least, however, there is a strong case that the drug trade truly affects interstate commerce"
Rodney! You surprise me! Do you really believe that federal drug laws are justifiable under the commerce clause?
I think that has to be the one of the most overworked of all constitutional principles.
What stopped?
Absolutely not.
All: the private ownership of lethal drugs is no different from the private ownership of firearms -- none of the gov't business.
No, not at all, its insane. But, within the realm of commerce clause insansity, it is one of the stronger cases. I.E. drugs actually do move in interstate commerce, and it effects law enforcement on all different levels. That is in contrast to this case where conservative activists have decided that shredding the constitution is ok in the name of judicial activism, so long as it is our side that is doing it.
I didn't read the whole thing, but to me it's a 10th Amend. case.
It's not something I could or would do, but I don't like the FEDERAL Gov. telling all of us what THEY say we should do. This is 'left to the States, and to the people.'
Has it occured to anyone that this is a subject much like Roe??? You don't like the FEDS telling us that, do you.
Think, people.
"There I believe the Feds have a legitimate interest in the matter."
You don't view that as an "end-run", and excuse? I believe the feds regulation of drugs is based on the commerce clause. To me that right there was stretching it to far, but nonethless... What if the patient used drugs produced in Oregon? Then would you be Ok w/ it?
I assume you are a supporter of the 2nd amendment. If the Oregon law allowed the doctors to shoot the patients in the head, would you change your mind as to whether or not the Feds have any role in the case?
"Doctors / pharmacists are supplying them with the means to do it, assisting with the process.."
As is the guy who sold me cigs on the way to work this AM. Should the feds stop him too?
The 10th amendment. This issue is not discussed in any way shape or form in the constitution, and should thus be left to the states.
The SC will never rule based on that Amendment because it would remind the People and the States that there are limits to federal power.
I predict that those yahoos would rule on this issue based on the Interstate Commerce Clause and how it would be affected by a dying man / woman's inheritance and estate tax payouts. /sarc
Taking life is unlawful, with an exception grante by the state in this instance. That exception is license to that class of individuals to do what is unlawful for the rest of us to do.
Besides you are quibbling. The issue is whether it is within the power of the Federal Government under the US Constitution to protect life when a state decides to do otherwise. It is not a slam dunk 10th ammendment issue like, say, issuing a building permit.
It will be interesting to see what the liberals do. Federal Power vs. Immoral Behavior. This has to be one of the thoughest cases ever for them.
The doctor is prescribing the lethal amounts of drugs.
That's not "doing" anything?
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.