Posted on 01/17/2006 7:07:26 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
I'd prefer that a physician I might employ someday was not in the practice of killing her patients.
Confessions are suspect de se. If you have someone who committed a crime you are likely to have a liar in that same person. So why believe a confession at all? It may keep us from capturing the real danger, the actual perpetrator.
And regarding guns, I think a reasonable law would allow a person to apply for a shall-issue exemption from ownership -- much the same way pepole now apply for carry permits.
"The individuals who elected to jump from the Twin Towers on 9/11 instead of burning to death chose a less painful death and I'm not going to judge whether or not God gave His permission for those people to do that or not. That is strictly between them and God. The rest of us have no role in judging lest we be judged."
Salient points imo.
"Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government should decide such matters just as nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government should decide issues of abortion."
The issue of abortion IS a constitutional matter -- that is murder. A heartbeat indicates "life" by ANY intellectually honest standard. Even the adjoining of egg and sperm is scientifically considered "life."
No it isn't. Murder is killing someone against his will, s suicide, assisted or not, id not murder.
To people like us being legally able to kill oneself might not sound like much of a right, but what's important about this decision is that it directly contradicts the horrible Raich decision of last term, which held that the Controlled Substances Act, the same federal law invoked in this case, superseded state law. This contradiction is in fact the basis of thomas' dissen in this case: he wanted consistency from the Court.
In any case, this makes the Court look like vacillating fools on the states' rights issue. It creates an opportunity for them to decide another states' rights case that clears the matter up.
**************
As I understand it, the state is less concerned about injury than the cost of treating it. It's a financial issue.
Here in MA, there has been a proposal to allow law enforcement to stop motorists who are not wearing seat belts, independent of any other infractions.
Self ping
As I said before, while I agree with you that your life does not belong to the government, it doesn't belong to you, either, it belongs to God. Your claim that third parties who assist you in taking your own life have some sort of ancillary immunity from prosecution is absurd, and I oppose any attempts to foist euthanasia and assisted suicide upon us. Now, if the people of the State of Oregon are immoral enough to legalized assisted suicide, that's their right (just as it was their right to vote for Dukakis on 1988, Clinton in 1992, Clinton in 1996, Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, which they did, by the way), but that does not strip the citizens of this nation of the right to direct the federal government to ensure that dangerous drugs regulated by Congress pursuant to the Commerce Clause are not used to deprive someone of their life without due process of law.
Remember, even had the case gone the other way, Oregon would have still had the right to keep assisted suicide legal, and those "doctors" who kill rather than heal would not be subject to prosecution, with the only difference that such "doctors" would not be able to use federally controlled drugs to take lives, and would need other ways of killing their patients (such as giving them overdoses of insulin, as someone suggested). That way, federalism would be truly preserved, since Oregon would have its assisted suicide but it would not have the imprimatur of consent from a federal government that represents all U.S. citizens, not just those from the Death State.
That's as may be, but you are still DEAD WRONG in claiming that the Constitution provides that our rights come from We the People. And if you have read any documents contemporary with the proposal and eventual approval of a Bill of Rights you would know that everyone involved understood such enumeration of rights to be declaratory in nature, since those rights were endowed to us by God, not Man.
You are correct that in America you have the right to be an atheist. You also have the right to lie about the origin of the Bill of Rights. But you will not succeed in hiding the truth for too long, at least not on FR.
There goes any efficiency in our justice system. Okay, how about forcing people to peacably assemble, forcing them to address their government for a redress of grievances, not allowing them to have a closed trial by request, and forcing every citizen to vote?
Sounds like you'd violate a lot of rights in forcing people to exercise their rights. And that doesn't count the unenumerated rights.
This is a sad watershed.
How long till the "rigth to die" becomes the "duty to die"? When socialized medicine gets here, do you really thing the choice will be real?
Come Lord Jesus.
I know it's not murder from a legal standpoint, but suicide is self-inflicted murder from a moral and/or biblical perspective. Aiding a person to commit suicide was still considered serious enough a few years ago in MI for Kevorkian to be prosecuted and sent to prison.
Aiding and abetting a murder is still a serious felony in all states AFAIK, but due to the wholesale abandonment of moral standards in the US over the last half century assisting suicide probably isn't illegal in most states today.
Don't worry, what's left of America's moral standards are falling faster and faster every day. The "right" you claim you have to hire a physician to help you kill yourself or a family member will be fully established in law within the very near future. I don't blame the courts as much as I blame the American people. When a formerly Christian nation allows it's government to officially renounce all association with God, as we have within my lifetime, it begins a downhill slide into a moral cesspool. Europe got a head start on us in the race to the bottom of the cesspool, but we're catching up fast.
Regarding the other issues you raise:
Here's a few legal definitions.
" SUICIDE, crimes, med. jur. The act of malicious self-murder; felo de se. (q.v.) 3 Man. Gran. & Scott, 437, 457, 458; 1 Hale, P. C.. 441.
suicide
n. the intentional killing of oneself. Ironically, in most states suicide is a crime, but if successful there is no one to punish. However, attempted suicide can be a punishable crime (seldom charged against one surviving the attempt). "Assisted suicide" is usually treated as a crime, either specifically (as in Michigan) or as a form of homicide (second degree murder or manslaughter), even when done as a kindness to a loved one who is terminally ill and in great pain.
See also: homicide manslaughter second degree murder
See also posts by Borges at 949, 948 and antecedent for historical referants.
Pardon me, I referred AuH20's posts to Borges in my post just above. Apologies to both of you.
But it it's not efficient, it can become overloaded, and then people lose their right to a speedy trial.
Forcing people to peacably assemble is oxymoronic.
No, it's just moronic, but they should be forced. The Democrats should pass a law requiring all people to protest or support one candidate in the next election, or go to jail.
and again in this case people are naturally wont to do so and it happens all the time.
But not everybody does it. You see a lot of complaining, but few actually write their elected officials. Jail for anyone who complains, but can't show proof of an actual petition for a redress of grievances.
Closed trials? Those are dangerous to Liberty and Justice
But there are times when the defense requests a closed or restricted trial because the openness could endanger the defense's right to a fair and speedy trial. But that should not be allowed.
Unenumerated rights? I'll take your meaning in this instance to refer to the related duty.
Unenumerated rights in the 9th, like the right to privacy. Therefore, no one should be allowed to publish private material. No autobiographies allowed, no cooperating with investigators in criminal investigations.
You forgot more. You have to force inventors and authors to exercise their exclusive rights to their inventions. Ben Franklin should not have been allowed to give away the lightning rod. Of course, then it would not have been so widespread, and therefore gained him the love of the French people, and then he wouldn't have been able to get the support for our revolution.
You continually confuse rights with duties. As you have seen, equating a right with a duty, enforcing its exercise, is absurd.
I never mentioned the Bill of Rights much less lied about them so calm down. My point is that, whatever understanding there may have been, the text of the UCS does not declare that our Rights come from God.
Same here. However, this deals with other people choosing suicide voluntarily in the face of a fatal and painful disease. As such, I don't feel I have a right to impose my personal position on them.
That's all and so there. (And I will always 'vote my conscience' when the opportunity arises --- don't you?)
As Judge Alito said in his hearing, there is a difference between a citizen and a Judge: A citizen votes his conscience. A lower Court Judge rules according to the Law. A Supreme Court Judge rules according to the Constitution.
The Constitution is silent in both the issue of abortion and assisted suicide which is exactly why Federal interference on this manner was rejected by the Supreme Court.
If Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, it will be for that exact same reason.
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.