Oregon Assisted Suicide Law
I feel a need to comment on the assisted suicide decision, despite having not read all the details or all 62 pages of the decision. But hey, isn't that what blogs are all about?
I think a very key distinction needs to be made here, and this is one case where, to me, it appears to be rather clear. Personal opinions and values are different than government-imposed values. For example, I believe very strongly in giving to charity -- and at the same time I think it's horribly, horribly wrong for government to "give" to charity. There are no contradictions in that position -- people giving to charity is good. It helps the giver and the receiver. It is voluntary. Government "giving" to charity is bad -- the money is taken at gunpoint from one person and a small portion is given to another. Neither the giver or the receiver benefits. With this case, I think the judges made the right decision. The Controlled Substance Act was about controlling the flow of illegal drugs. For the US Government to attempt to use this act that was designed to arrest cocaine dealers to overturn a law passed by the people of a state is just silly. States should be able to do what they want in nearly all cases. The only exception is when those laws conflict with the U.S. Constitution -- NOT U.S. Code, but the U.S. Constitution. There's nothing in the Constitution that says you cannot kill yourself. At the same time, I think this is a horrible law. Now I wonder if the court would take the same view of another federal law that is almost identical -- Roe v. Wade (which has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, by the way, so don't go there).
Comments
"There's nothing in the Constitution that says you cannot kill yourself."
That is not the standard. The purpose of the U.S. Constitution is not to set limits on what people can do. The purpose is to limit government. Of course, that has been turned upside down over the past 100 years.
But there are a lot of things that the Constitution does not say. The Constitution doesn't say you can not eat broccoli. Is that the basis of my right to eat broccoli. No.
The theme of the Constitution is the individual rights of citizens. The Founders enumerated some of the rights in order to make some explicit. But just because a right to either do or not do something is not in the Constitution is not the standard. The overall standard is individual rights.
All the best..
Andy
Posted by: The Charlotte Capitalist at January 18, 2006 07:35 PM (jqUF+)
Posted by: Echo Zoe at January 18, 2006 08:30 PM (K+h36)
Echo, I haven't seen any conservatives really commenting on this decision at all...
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 10:39 PM (+Gl1m)
Realistically, like you said, there is nothing in the Constitution that says you cannot kill yourself. Nor is there anything that states that a State cannot pass a law alowing physician assisted suicide. And the USSC made the right decesion.
Posted by: William Teach at January 19, 2006 12:46 AM (IRsCk)
Yes, it's a really, really bad law, if you ask me, but the state absolutely has the ability to make that law without the interference of the federal government.
Now how is this any different than Roe v. Wade? Oh, right, in Roe v. Wade, the federal government had the same situation, but ruled the other way...
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 12:49 AM (+Gl1m)
Posted by: William Teach at January 19, 2006 01:04 AM (IRsCk)
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 01:26 AM (+Gl1m)
To play devil's advocate .... There is nothing in the Constitution saying that you can kill yourself either.
Posted by: Machelle at January 19, 2006 01:43 PM (ZAyoW)
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 02:06 PM (/k+l4)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0076 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0054 seconds, 17 records returned.
Page size 9 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.