Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Say goodbye to states' rights.

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Molon Labe, Oct 5, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Molon Labe

    Molon Labe Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,700
    Location:
    SW Ohio
  2. Dionysusigma

    Dionysusigma Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    3,671
    Location:
    Okay City
    You're kidding, right? :scrutiny:

    Welcome to 1861.
     
  3. Skofnung

    Skofnung Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Location:
    Atlanta Area
    Uh, states rights died at at a courthouse over a century and a half ago.
     
  4. Don't Tread On Me

    Don't Tread On Me Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,213
    Location:
    FLORIDA
    Agreed, States Rights became extinct oh say...1865ish.
     
  5. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    Yay for voting republican, the party of small government and federalism.

    In what part of the constitution does the right to regulate medicine reside? Oh right, the controlled substances act is interstate commerce because some drugs travel interstate and assisted suicide is interstate commerce because it is performed with drugs that are regulated by the CSA.

    So much for John Roberts, long time member of the Federalist Society. Something tells me that few Romans mourned the fall of the empire when it eventually came.
     
  6. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    Boy that pesky Delclaration of Independence says we have the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

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

    cuchulainn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,297
    Location:
    Looking for a cow that Queen Meadhbh stole
    See the 9th Amendment. ;)

    I'm not a big fan of assisted suicide, but if assisted suicide is a right (and I'm not saying it is), then the Consitution would protect it under the 9th Amendment.

    Oh, and by the way, everyone -- States don't have rights, they have powers.
     
  8. Skofnung

    Skofnung Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Location:
    Atlanta Area
    If ending ones life by ones own choice makes one happy, then who is the state to butt in?

    Even outside of the Delclaration or the Constitution, I believe that the founders believed in the primacy of the individual.
     
  9. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    They did not believe in suicide.

    It was generally considered wrong and punishable offence at the time.
     
  10. petrel800

    petrel800 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    301
    You can't have life without death. So a right to life, would also be a right to dealth.

    If you don't believe in suicide, then don't kill yourself. Otherwise, I don't see how anyone killing themselves effects your rights in any way, shape, or form.
     
  11. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    It's not about stopping suicide its whether physician assisted suicide is constitutional.

    If you want to stick the gun in your mouth and pull the trigger I'm not stopping you.
     
  12. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    On the proverbial "bright side," at least we know the new statist bully boy isn't a time waster, right?
     
  13. junyo

    junyo Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    719
    Exactly. There's a difference between something being legal and something being convenient. This law lowers the bar for suicide by making it easy, painless, and risk free (no chance of missing or not taking enough).

    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.
    I always love how any statement about states rights always instantly becomes about those noble slaveowners were so terribly abused but that nasty federal government in 1861, and how it marked the end of true freedom - except, of course, for the forced labor, but shush that ruins the impact of the narrative.
     
  14. Nehemiah Scudder

    Nehemiah Scudder Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    391
    I don't find the theory behind all this, that tons of people are going to start offing themselves, very credible.
     
  15. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,297
    Location:
    Looking for a cow that Queen Meadhbh stole
    And you just committed an ad hominem fallacy. Regardless of the motives and morality of the Southern cause, State Powers(*) were harmed greatly by the Civil War. That's an historical fact.

    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.

    (*) "States Rights" is a misnomer. States don't have rights, people do. States (and other governments) have powers.
     
  16. No_Brakes23

    No_Brakes23 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,604
    Location:
    Everett, WA Recently escaped from San Diego, PRK
    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. If it was really about slavery, then why was one of the northern states, (Kentucky,) a slave state?

    Slavery was very much talked about, but in reality was a non-issue that was going away anyway. Technology and Legislation had already gauranteed the eventual obsolescence of slavery. I am not defending slavery as a good thing, certainly it was a blight on our nation since the start. But the War of Northern Agression was about money and power, not freeing the slaves.

    Personally, as an American, I am glad the Union won, since it preserved the unity of our nation. But as a patriot and lover of freedoms, I have to realize that the powers/rights/freedoms/sovereignty of states was greatly diminished.
     
  17. R.H. Lee

    R.H. Lee Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    7,377
    Location:
    CA
    Upon what constitutional grounds does the government claim authority to regulate drugs? Is this essentially the same legal argument that frustrated California voters attempt to legalize medical marijuana? Is Oregon's claim that since such regulatory power is not specifically bestowed to the federal government by the Constitution, it becomes the purview of the state(s)?
     
  18. wingnutx

    wingnutx Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,047
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    One of the reasons I was happy with Roberts' nomination was his past opinions on limits of federal law and what "interstate commerce" consisted of.

    I hope I was not dead wrong. We'll see.
     
  19. MICHAEL T

    MICHAEL T Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2004
    Messages:
    6,011
    Location:
    outback Kentucky
    "why was one of the northern states, (Kentucky,) a slave state?"

    As I recall Kentucky refused to take sides. It was neither northern or southern. Many people fought from the state on both sides. Seems to me a couple other states did the same.
     
  20. Technosavant

    Technosavant Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,011
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    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. While in this case, it seems to be ludicrous (if somebody wants to off themselves, so be it), but it can also have pretty far reaching effects when it comes to drug certification. That can be a bad thing and a good thing.

    Remember- when cases hit before SCOTUS, it is rarely about the items which make up the meat of the case. The whole thing will very often turn on some peripheral (and seemingly irrelevant) facet.
     
  21. No_Brakes23

    No_Brakes23 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,604
    Location:
    Everett, WA Recently escaped from San Diego, PRK
    Yes, and most Kentucky residents would consider themselves southerners. But Kentucky did not secede, and therefore the Emancipation Proclamation did not free their slaves. Thus, they were a slave owning state within the Union.
     
  22. Kim

    Kim Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,488
    I'm a physician and I don't know what to think about this. If someone wants to commit suicide they will do it no matter what. But then physicians are suppossed to try and prevent it and have been sued for someone committing suicide. I then think of the Hippocratic oath or what it was. It has already been changed to allow abortion. I guess they will change it again to allow assisted suicide. I can just see 30 years from now Physicians will be trained in Medical School how to assist in suicide while at the same time being taught how to save lives. Will it be a op-in or op-out for such teaching. Abortion training when I went was op-in but it is my understanding that now in some schools you have to op-out. 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?
     
  23. thorn726

    thorn726 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,388
    Location:
    berkeley, CA
    i dont know what to think in terms of law, but i have this to think about=

    i have worked for and am friends with a large number of Quadrapeligics, some born that way, some caused later. ....

    When Dr K helped a recently paralyzed "crip" die , my friends were NOT happy.
    how many disabled people get disabled, go into depression for a few months,
    but ultimately get through it and have really good lives?

    assisting a terminal old person who really cant do it themselves, i can see being injected as much more dignified than sitting in a garage.

    but letting a Doc assist anyone who is depressed kill themselves?

    what's next, Suicide Rounds in the mental hospital?
     
  24. Molon Labe

    Molon Labe Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,700
    Location:
    SW Ohio
    Hmm. So if the constitution doesn’t say I can, then I can't? I wasn't aware the constitution was the source of our rights. :rolleyes:
     
  25. Sleeping Dog

    Sleeping Dog Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,255
    Location:
    MI
    I like the other way of reading the Constitution. If it doesn't say I can't do something, then I can.

    Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. That's great, but maybe people would like to legally opt out of Life, Confinement, Misery and Pain. Hopefully states like Oregon would try to draw distinctions between terminal illness and temporary depression, and create guidelines for administration of drugs.

    If this is outlawed, then people just revert to the old-fashioned "accidental death while cleaning a firearm". Messy, but generally effective.

    Regards.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page