[Rodney King]

So, given that about 10 constitutional principles collide in this one, which do you think is the position that a "strict construtionist" should take?

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.

[AndyJackson]

This issue is not discussed in any way shape or form in the constitution, and should thus be left to the states.

Well okey dokie. If you say so (I mean your statement - this issue is not discussed in any way shape or form in the constitution). I suspect, however, it is not quite so simple as that.

[Centurion2000]

So, given that about 10 constitutional principles collide in this one, which do you think is the position that a "strict construtionist" should take?

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

[Texas Federalist]

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.

But is the right to die a right "retained by the people" under the 9th Amendment that can be regulated by the states?