Say goodbye to states' rights.

[Michigander]

Oregon is essentially arguing that the Federal government has no authority to regulate what Oregon chooses to declare an acceptable medical practice, the government is asserting that they have the right to enforce federal laws regulating the type and/or usage of drugs and that if those regulations make it more difficult or impossible for Oregon's doctor to assist suicides then tough. Justice Roberts merely pointed out that if Oregon's argument stands enforcing any federal drug or medical standard would be impossible.

So what about the drugs used for capital punishment? Are they federally approved to end someone's life? If so, maybe Oregon should just use those.

 

[AStone]

not your business

I believe in relieving pain and suffering but I will not help someone kill themselves. That burden they will have to bear themselves. I find these people in some ways selfish. They want to involve someone else in their suicide I think in order to help them rationalize the acceptance of their actions. Carbon monoxide posioning is painless also. But they say it is not dignified. How dignified is it to involve someone else in your suicide?

That depends.

If i invite you to come only for the purpose of having you watch me scatter my own neurons & blood on the wall with my {9 mm, .357, 12 ga] [this is a gun forum, after all. just doing my share to prevent this thread from being locked], then it's got no dignity.

On the other hand, if I choose to invite a few close friends or family members to my suicide {should i decide to do that, which at this point i have NO intention of doing}, and we play Mozart, drink wine, eat fine bread & cheese before I {pull the trigger, eat the pills, jump from the 5th floor, etc}, then it could be arguably 'dignified'.

IMO, when it comes to whether and how long I live MY life, it's not about federal rights, states right or corporate rights.

It's about individual rights.

Whether I have the flu or not, a broken arm or not, cancer or not, live or not ain't none of your **c***g business, as long as i don't harm you in the process of deciding.

Likewise for my physician, with whom I have a personal & professional relationship.

Hear this well: what you say about supreme court justices, attourney generals, presidents, governors, tax agencies, police & fire departments, fish & game departments .... all that is fair game.

But as long as I'm not affecting your life or health, then stay out of my life, and stay out of my death.

If it comes down to it, if I'm in severe pain, with no choice of a comfortable sleep, or dancing, or shooting the 9 at the range with pleasure, & I want to stick said 9 into my mouth pointed at my brainstem & pull that 8 lb trigger, then after i do so, since i killed someone (me), you should send out the sherriff and have me arrested, tried & convicted.

But if you have an ounce of dignity, a gram of compassion for those who suffer needless chronic pain leading to terrible death - like my father, who spent the last two months of his life in CCU hooked up to innumerable beeping machines - who say to themselves, "it's been great, but i'd like to check out now", well then i say to you, let them die with dignity when they choose.

Just an opinion. No Truth implied.

 

[Marko Kloos]

owhere in the US Constitution or any other document do you have the right to physician assisted suicide.

The Constitution is not a List of Things Allowed to Citizens. It is a List of Things Allowed to Government, amended with a List of Things Definitely Not Allowed to Government. And I don't see anything in the Constitution about government being able to regulate medications or the use thereof.

You're right in that you read the Constitution as "if it ain't in here, it's prohibited." You're wrong in that you apply that maxim to Joe Citizen. It applies to the government.

 

[publius]

Looks like Roberts agrees with Scalia and the left, not Thomas and the right, when it comes to interstate commerce.

Wouldn't want to undermine those one-size-fits-all federal regulatory standards, now would we?

 

[benEzra]

This case is not about suicide. It is about the ability of a state to allow drug usage which is not approved by the FDA.

+1.

 

[El Tejon]

Michael T, Kentucky joined the Union in 1862 when faced with Southern aggression and invasion. No Brakes, the Civil War was most assuredly about slavery by admission of the Southern states.

The issue before the Supremes is whether the federal interest in protecting life via the 14th Amendment trumps a state's inherent police power. IME, the issue is so personal that it transcends the usual right/left distinctions.

 

[beerslurpy]

This case is not about suicide. It is about the ability of a state to allow drug usage which is not approved by the FDA.

Which is why it is so sad that Scalia and Roberts, supposed members of the FEDERALIST SOCIETY, would choose to completely ignore the major issue in favor of striking a blow for religious conservatism. Very petty minded.

While the socialists on the court have their eyes firmly planted on protecting Wickard v Filburn, the "conservatives" dither and avoid confrontation.

 

[NCP24]

The Southern states share a measure of the blame to be sure. They chose an immoral issue on which to fight for State Powers, thereby forever linking the two and allowing the same ad hominem you committed.

I can understand why you don’t like the word "States Rights”, but do you honestly believe the Civil War was only about slavery?

I always love how people want to reduce the Civil War to being all about slavery, instead of being a concerted effort on the part of northern businessmen trying to control southern production. This struggle had been going on since before the War of Independence. The war was about the right to leave the Union, but Lincoln painted it as a moral struggle.

I agree with you No Brakes23, it was all about economy and sovereignty. The Feds simply broke the contract one too many times and as you pointed out the slavery issue was just painted as a moral issue.

Now I can understand the condemnation toward the word "States Rights”, and yes I fully realize that state sovereignty went out the window years ago. Now what I don’t understand is why everyone is so eager to dismiss and rebuke fundamental beliefs set fourth by our founding fathers. States Rights, States Powers, States sovereignty (or whatever) equals subordinate fed gov.. which sounds good to me.

Now as for this case, my guess is the court will rule in favor of the Fed. Gov.

 

[El Tejon]

NCP, the problem is that the states may tyrannize as well. For example, after the Civil War, the Southern states attempted to deny the freedmen their rights as Americans and Congress responded with the 1866 Civil Acts and then the 14th Amendment.

 

[antarti]

Slavery? Are you kidding?

Anybody who still believes that slavery was the cause of the Civil War (yes, it's a misnomer) should have been around to tell that to the tens of thousands of Union troops who dropped their arms and deserted when they heard the text of the Emancipation Proclamation.

They were stunned to find out it was about slavery, a cause they didn't think was worth fighting for. Up to that point, they thought they were doing something (to them) noble, like preserving the Union.

The civil war was not started due to slavery. Slavery was brought in by Lincoln to drive up support for his war. Get over it.

Where was the Supreme Court during all this, and why didn't they render an opinion? Between imprisonment and exile, that's where.

 

[Dain Bramage]

what's next, Suicide Rounds in the mental hospital?

That, and more. If you want to know what's next, just check out the Dutch hashing out rules on how to off children.

Suicide is not the State's job, and it irretrievably harms what a physician should be.

 

[JShirley]

There is no such thing as "state sovereignty", at least under the Constitution (as opposed to the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union).

Article 6 (Supremacy Clause):
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The civil war was not started due to slavery. Slavery was brought in by Lincoln to drive up support for his war. Get over it.

Actually, since the South left because they were afraid of losing their slaves, in effect starting the war, yes, the war was fought because of slavery. No, the North was not fighting to free the slaves, but the South WAS fighting to keep them. Claiming the war was not fought over slavery is disingenuous at best.

Slavery was brought in by Lincoln to drive up support for his war.

Not at all true. The Emancipation Proclamation, among other things, made England and France very reluctant to recognize the CSA or assist them. Instead of "driving up support for his war", it acted to prevent support for the South.

Lincoln did not "paint the war as a moral struggle". He was openly not for slavery, but plainly stated that his motivation was preserving the Union, whether slavery was still extant or not.

John

 

[rick_reno]

Let's see - Roberts clerked for Rehnquist. Rehnquist, on a case about physician assisted suicide, referred to this very history when he wrote that "...for over 700 years, the Anglo American common law tradition has punished or otherwise disapproved of both suicide and assisting suicide."

The 'history" mentioned above is the brilliant English jurist William Blackstone who defined suicide as "self-murder," categorized it as a "felony," and wrote that it was long considered to be of the "highest crimes" in common law history. While not an American Founder, Blackstone provided a definitive explanation and summary of the English common law tradition that informed American jurisprudence. His immense influence on America's legal and political heritage is undisputed by historians.

I don't think there should be any doubt about which way Roberts is going to go on this one. Bush sure did good with this one.

 

[NCP24]

NCP, the problem is that the states may tyrannize as well.

Very true, but wouldn’t you rather have your elected officials closer to home where they can be held accountable for their actions. Do we just say heck with our state and local officials and let the fed gov. impose its will?

There is no such thing as "state sovereignty", at least under the Constitution (as opposed to the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union).

True, however the states delegated certain powers to the fed. by way of the Constitution and those powers not found in the constitution were reserved to the state or people, and protected by the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Remember it’s the Bill of Rights and Not the Bill of Powers. As for state sovereignty, the term has been widely used by the legal profession throughout our history, it was also an extremely important issue prior to and during the ratification of the Constitution.

I think we all realize that our current form of government is not what the Founding Fathers or states/people imagined when they ratified the constitution. I would dare to say if so the states/people would have never delegated such power and would have held out tooth and nail for a stronger Bill of Rights.

I just don’t see how we can justify our 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms while turning our back on the 10th Amendment or any other Amendment for that matter.

 

[cuchulainn]

NCP24: I can understand why you don’t like the word "States Rights”, but do you honestly believe the Civil War was only about slavery?

I never said anything about only.

I know there were other factors. But slavery was one factor, and a big one. The Southern states -- whether they intended to or not -- linked States Powers to that immoral institution when they seceded to protect their power to decide slavery (yes, among other reasons for seceding).

The Southern states thus share a measure of blame in the 1860s damage to State Powers. The link between State Powers and slavery is as much their fault as it is Lincoln's. Indeed, they handed Lincoln all the propaganda he needed to attack State Powers.

FWIW, I see both sides in typical Civil War debates as being wrong. It is wrong to say the war was about only slavery, but it also is wrong to deny that it was about slavery at all.

 

[antarti]

I don't see what powers Fedgov has to regulate doctors, or their actions enumerated anywhere.
I don't see what powers Fedgov has to regulate medications anywhere (except maybe if they are going to cross state lines, and these would be procured and injected locally, not shipped to the patient). Just because I once crossed a state line doesn't make me Fedgov property exclusively and forever does it?
I don't see what powers Fedgov has to regulate/prohibit suicide anywhere.

Seems simple to me.

Am I missing something?

They were stunned to find out it was about slavery, a cause they didn't think was worth fighting for. Up to that point, they thought they were doing something (to them) noble, like preserving the Union.

Answer that one mod... I guess those soldiers were too dumb to know what they were fighting for?

 

[Henry Bowman]

Whoa! Just a minute here. Roberts hasn't voted yet. What you ALL are overlooking is that appellate judges OFTEN make retorical statements or ask questions that do not reveal their opinion or leaning. He may agree with the implied answer to the question, or he may be wanting to highlight the weakness of the answer.

On the other hand, The difference between this an the California medical MJ case is that here the drugs HAVE moved in interstate commerce.

I have no confidence in the outcome either way.

 

[NCP24]

I know there were other factors. But slavery was one factor, and a big one. The Southern states -- whether they intended to or not -- linked States Powers to that immoral institution when they seceded to protect their power to decide slavery (yes, among other reasons for seceding).

Cuchulainn I do want to say thanks for pointing out the negativity associated with certain words like "States Rights”. However, I question if we should really abandon the phrase/concept just because someone may have misused it way back when. I mean it’s basically the same argument the anti-gun folks use (guns are bad - guns kill people) we should get rid of guns.

 

[cuchulainn]

NCP24: Cuchulainn I do want to say thanks for pointing out the negativity associated with certain words like "States Rights”. However, I question if we should really abandon the phrase and belief it stands for just because someone may have misused it way back when.

No, no, no. I've made two separate points about State Powers. You're confusing them.

Point 1) The South's linking State Power and slavery (intentionally or not) harmed State Powers.

Point 2) The term States Rights is an misnomer, so we should use the term State Powers.

On Point 2, look at the 10th Amendment (my emphasis): "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Note that the Amendment speaks of powers, not rights. The Constitution uses rights and powers as very distinct concepts. The term States Rights confuses these concepts.

The term rights refers to actions or personal conditions that ought to be free of government control or infringement. Rights are unalienable. Individuals have rights.

The term powers refers to what governments are allowed by the people to do. Powers are granted. States (in this context) are governments. States have powers.

Thus the term State Rights diminishes the concept of rights as unalienable by making rights a synonym for something granted, powers. Semantics, I know, but he who controls the language controls the debate.

 

[Otherguy Overby]

Regarding slavery, the first shots fired in the civil war were over a naval blockade. The north blockaded southern ports to prevent southern ships leaving for europe to sell raw goods for more than the northern "special interest groups" were willing to pay.

Yes slavery was unpopular and on the way out. The south was doubly screwed because the north wanted their goods for less than market value but also wanted to end slavery and thusly the south's ability to produce those raw goods. Everyone complains about schools teaching dreck. Has it occurred to you that maybe those very same schools were teaching dreck about the south's seccession issues? History tends to be written by the victors...

Now, about suicide, is it really suicide to ask for a large shot of morphine to end one's suffering through the final stage of terminal illness? Prohibiting this sounds cruel and unusual. Besides, most all of us already know prohibition doesn't work.

Finally, for the doctor's "dilemma: This isn't about someone taking themselves out prematurely because of ennui, losing an election, a relationship or something. It is solely about ending suffering. Don't forget that.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Now, about suicide, is it really suicide to ask for a large shot of morphine to end one's suffering through the final stage of terminal illness?

Absolutely not. And anyone who thinks so has never been with a loved one during that time. When that time comes for you, I guarantee you will be urging the nurses and doctor to increase the morphine and ativan to the max.

 

[NCP24]

Semantics, I know, but he who controls the language controls the debate.

Your statement is very true. Please don’t view any of our discussion as a debate, I’m just testing the waters and picking up tips along the way.

 

[idakfan]

"Doctor Assisted Suicide"

I read that as "I'm too much of a pansy to do myself in."

 

[JShirley]

the first shots fired in the civil war were over a naval blockade. The north blockaded southern ports to prevent southern ships leaving for europe to sell raw goods for more than the northern "special interest groups" were willing to pay.

So, you're saying that there were shots fired by the North before the Confederate shelling of Fort Sumter? Could I get some documentation, please?

Also, are you actually saying that the blockade started before some states attempted to leave the Union?!

John

 

[Dain Bramage]

Absolutely not. And anyone who thinks so has never been with a loved one during that time. When that time comes for you, I guarantee you will be urging the nurses and doctor to increase the morphine and ativan to the max.

And they already do that in most hospitals. I am not against doing all one can to alleviate pain, and if that sould overlap into an overdose, so be it.

It may be a fine line on semantics, but the goal of controlling pain to willfully causing death is a big divide in my opinion. It is the difference between doctors historically being healers and the documented cases of abuses in the Netherlands.