Skip to comments.On Assisted Suicide, Gov. (Schwarzenegger) Says Voters Should Decide
Posted on 01/25/2006 10:39:44 AM PST by iPod Shuffle
On Assisted Suicide, Gov. Says Voters Should Decide # The issue is too important to be left to elected officials only, Schwarzenegger says.
By Robert Salladay and Jordan Rau, Times Staff Writers
SACRAMENTO In a blow to California lawmakers attempting to legalize doctorassisted suicide this year, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Tuesday that such a momentous decision is better left to voters rather than to elected officials.
Thirteen years ago, California rejected an initiative that sought to let a doctor supervise the death of a critically ill patient. But with the U.S. Supreme Court upholding Oregon's assisted suicide law this month, lawmakers in Sacramento are pushing new legislation they had hoped Schwarzenegger would embrace.
"I personally think this is a decision probably that should go to the people, like the death penalty and other big issues," the governor said. "I don't think 120 legislators and I should make the decision. I think the people should make the decision, and whatever that is, that is what it ought to be."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
"The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles." -- Ayn Rand
"A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom." -- Patrick Henry
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other." -- John Adams
If leaders are going to shove off all the tough decisions to the will and whims of the voters (masses) then why have leaders in the first place? A Republic should not and cannot be run successfully in this manner.
The practical effect is that Arnold will veto legislation that would establish assisted suicide (ie legalized murder). Good for him.
I don't believe in mobocracy nor would I want to live in a society where morality is determined by whatever gets more votes from the mob.
If we put the stoning to death of adulterous husbands (or wives) up for popular vote, it might win. So then we make it law?
Good... That's how it should be.
It's amazing to me that we would allow this up for a vote....what next "no fault rape" or will we legalize incest? Some things are just wrong.
I am not rendering an opinion on suicide, but rather on whether voters should be deciding the issue.
I believe it was Justice Breyer who wrote in his recent book about the people's inability to make valid descions. He was widely blasted on this site. It seems that you are agreeing with his philosphy.
Laws are determined by what the poeple think is moral. If the people believe, and vote that something is moral then that is what they define as moral. By any standard, the term 'moral' is a subjective one.
It would seem to me that "...of the People, by the People, and for the People..." would be better served by putting important societal and moral issues to the People. The government is better used to administer to the decisions of the People, rather than telling the People what will be, no matter how repugnant the majority of the People find it...
"Just my opinion."
No, you're rightly echoing that of God Himself. :)
Absolute truth must prevail, else all is on a slippery slope.
Of course, I can't imagine Jefferson, Adams, and the rest ever imagining that something like assisted suicide or abortion would ever appear before a legistature (or a court, for that matter).
DISCUSSION ABOUT: "CA Governor Schwarzenegger and the Issue of 'Assisted Suicide'"
To be included or removed from the Moral Absolutes Ping List, please FreepMail either MillerCreek or wagglebee.
At first I couldn't believe he said this but on further reflection it *may* be a wise move. If the populace rejects assissted suicide (which I hope it will) then any politition who fights it will have to do so publicly and jeapordise his political carreer. Same for judges who seek to change the law through judical activism. If that happens there are bound to be lawsuits over it and the people who are pushing it are forced out into the open.