Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 06/08/2005 4:19:52 PM PDT by Crackingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Crackingham

Touchy issue - but precendent usually trumps all. We shall see.


2 posted on 06/08/2005 4:23:11 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Crackingham; EagleUSA

So the author feels that Californai and Oregon are violating Federalist principles by asserting their constitutional rights???

Total crap.


4 posted on 06/08/2005 4:26:27 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis (A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Crackingham

The Commerce Clause was originally intended to be extremely narrow, as a way of preventing trade wars among the States. Even the judicial tyrants who now wield it as a federal power trump card attest to this. As long as we continue to pretend that the courts can amend the Constitution at will, we will be a nation ruled by men and not by laws, and this whole debate is pointless. The United States is no longer a nation ruled by law. The only public contest is making the men who rule our men rather than their men.


6 posted on 06/08/2005 4:31:46 PM PDT by thoughtomator (The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Crackingham
"But punishing Oregon doctors would violate the principle of federalism because assisted suicide has been explicitly made a proper medical practice under Oregon law."

The federal government does NOT have a problem with Oregon's assisted suicide law -- that is a proper state function.

The federal government is simply saying not to use federally regulated drugs when assisting suicide.

7 posted on 06/08/2005 4:33:21 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Crackingham
"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"

"Proscription" means "to banish or outlaw."

In Griswold v. Connecticut, Justice Goldberg, in his consenting opinion, declared that ingesting a chemical, in this case a birth control pill, was a "fundamental" right, a right "retained by the people," protected by Amendment IX.

Alcohol, another chemical that free people can ingest, could only be banned by a constitutional amendment, not a federal law enforced by a congressional agency.

So, what has changed since then that allows the "powers of Congress," through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), to overrule, usurp, diminish, "deny or disparage" our rights, "retained by the people," protected by the Constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1965?

14 posted on 06/08/2005 5:31:26 PM PDT by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 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)?

force to permit. The author doesn't notice how absurd that notion is.

29 posted on 06/09/2005 10:58:30 AM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson