The battle over the "right" to assisted suicide

[Justin_stacy]

High Court Clashes Over Assisted Suicide (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051006/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_assisted_suicide_25;_ylt=AsJ YM8LYiqld.WWLF.gKw3JuCM0A;_ylu=X3oD MTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)
WASHINGTON - New Chief Justice John Roberts stepped forward Wednesday as an aggressive defender of federal authority to block doctor-assisted suicide, as the Supreme Court clashed over an Oregon law that lets doctors help terminally ill patients end their lives.

The justices will decide if the federal government, not states, has the final say on the life-or-death issue.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Who Chooses Physician-Assisted Suicide?
Wednesday, October 05, 2005

PORTLAND, Ore. — Since 1997, more than 230 terminally ill Oregonians have ended their lives with lethal but legally prescribed doses of medication. The rate of "assisted suicides" has risen since the Oregon Death With Dignity Act (search) went into effect, hitting a high of 42 in 2003.

A common argument against legal assisted suicide has been that the poor, black, or uneducated would be more vulnerable to abuse. But in Oregon, those who have opted for it have tended to be college educated, white, single and suffering from cancer, AIDS or Lou Gehrig's disease (search).

Most have reported the reason they chose to commit suicide was out of fear they would eventually be unable to care for themselves, rather than out of fear of pain or becoming a financial burden to their families.

Click in the video box to the above right to view a report by FOX News' Dan Springer.

According to health department reports, most patients died within a few hours of taking a lethal amount of barbiturates.

But last year, there were three reported incidence of complications. The patients vomited after taking the pills, and while they all eventually died, one took 31 hours to do so.

This year, Oregon saw its first reported case of failure. Lung-cancer patient David Prueitt went into a coma that lasted for three days. After he woke up, he lived for two more weeks. The ordeal reinforced his brother's opposition to assisted suicide (search).

"It just seems like we are dabbling in an area that is really not ours. We are taking control in an area that ... God gives life, he's also the taker of it," said brother Steve Prueitt.

But one cancer patient said that knowing that a physician-supervised suicide is an option has given her great peace.

"All I want is the option. The amount of peace I have had, knowing from the beginning when I was given my diagnosis, that this option was available to me is beyond describing," said Lovell Svart.

Oregon voters have largely agreed that Svart and others like her ought to be given a choice. Sixty-one percent of voters backed the law in 1997, and while initial polls showed doctors overwhelmingly against it, acceptance is growing.

The medical profession is still deeply divided over the issue. Doctors who participate argue assisted suicide is compassionate, but many of their colleagues say the practice is a violation of the oath to do no harm.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171348,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_16_%281994%29

[Cal Smith]

Hard issue. personally i dont think it's right from a moral stand point, but i can certainly see someone getting to that point when they have a terminal illness.

[awdeetdeet]

I see nothing wrong with this. If somebody doesn't want to live because they are in pain 24 hours a day and are going to die soon anyway then whats the problem. It's only not allowed because suicide is considered immoral by....the bible. Which should have nothing to do with our legal system, but unfortunately has everything to do with it.

[Justin_stacy]

That pesky bible, always working against liberal’s attempts at striking down morality…..


My opinion on the matter is that mortal life, with few exceptions, is the property of the individual. And if death is their choice, the state has little say in the matter, so long as the action only pertains to the individual.

Now what I do have a problem with is "doctors" involving themselves within the act of suicide, something I feel will lead us down a very dangerous path. Doctor’s obligations are to save and sustain life, not take it, and nothing good can come out of changing that basic standard…..

[radiofriendly]

Now what I do have a problem with is "doctors" involving themselves within the act of suicide, something I feel will lead us down a very dangerous path. Doctor’s obligations are to save and sustain life, not take it, and nothing good can come out of changing that basic standard…..
interesting point. i never thought about, but i can see the potential of danger as the line between doctors obligations to human life get foggier. still a tough call. your comment before this makes a lot more sense. there's also room to mention that legalization can lead to manipulation and/or abuse of the privelige. i agree that suicide is the obligation of the individual. to bring someone else into play can't have too many benefits at all.

[Rebs]

I find this a very difficult issue. I think that it is morally wrong to assist in suicide, but at the same time, people can get desperate, or terminally ill. At that point, I'm not really sure where I stand.

[GhostsDaddy]

Another issue that is a lot easier than people are making it out to be.

1) I don't believe I should kill myself or others, nor should anyone else.
2) I don't believe I or anyone else should have the right to tell someone they aren't allowed to die, especially since they had no choice as to whether or not they came into this world.
3) I would never do it, I would hate it if anyone I knew did it, but I don't think it's a bad thing. I can't expect everyone else to live up to my moral code, which makes sense, because other people can make their own choices. They aren't hurting anyone else.

[Lueda Alia]

I think this should be allowed if there's no hope for recovery. I know that I'd rather die than live like Terri Schiavo, and I'm sure a lot of other people feel the same way.

[GhostsDaddy]

I think this should be allowed if there's no hope for recovery. I know that I'd rather die than live like Terri Schiavo, and I'm sure a lot of other people feel the same way.
That's the thing. Is there a difference between choosing not to live and choosing to die? As in, is there a difference between saying DNR or taking barbituates?

[JWKingofNerds]

That pesky bible, always working against liberal’s attempts at striking down morality…..
That pesky Constitution, alway's working against conservative attempts at enforcing their very specific idea of morality...

[The Revisionist]

My opinion on the matter is that mortal life, with few exceptions, is the property of the individual. And if death is their choice, the state has little say in the matter, so long as the action only pertains to the individual.DING DING DING!

The federal government (and this is a shocker, trust me) should have no say in this.

[Cal Smith]

I think this should be allowed if there's no hope for recovery. I know that I'd rather die than live like Terri Schiavo, and I'm sure a lot of other people feel the same way.

schiavo was a different case. the idea of refusing treatment is more acceptable than the idea having a doctor end your life for you.

[Justin_stacy]

That pesky Constitution, alway's working against conservative attempts at enforcing their very specific idea of morality...

Good point....conservatives must be scared of that pesky constitution and the law, that's why they always support activist judges whose sole purpose are to legislate above their constitutional duties. As opposed to liberals who always nominate strict interpreters of the constitution..........oh wait a minute…..

DING DING DING!

The federal government (and this is a shocker, trust me) should have no say in this.

This is a perfect example of why state right's need to be championed again......

[lackofcolour 13]

That pesky bible, always working against liberal’s attempts at striking down morality…..


My opinion on the matter is that mortal life, with few exceptions, is the property of the individual. And if death is their choice, the state has little say in the matter, so long as the action only pertains to the individual.

Now what I do have a problem with is "doctors" involving themselves within the act of suicide, something I feel will lead us down a very dangerous path. Doctor’s obligations are to save and sustain life, not take it, and nothing good can come out of changing that basic standard…..
yes. thank you. I dont need to type a response because you typed it for me.

[swirlofhues]

I think 90 percent of the time it shouldn't be allowed. Even if you might be terminally ill, there's a chance of living a fulfilling life. It really depends on the extremity of the situation, though. So, I guess I agree with an option for it but it shouldn't be allowed for just about anyone.

[JWKingofNerds]

Good point....conservatives must be scared of that pesky constitution and the law, that's why they always support activist judges whose sole purpose are to legislate above their constitutional duties. As opposed to liberals who always nominate strict interpreters of the constitution..........oh wait a minute…..
A loose interpretation of the Constitution is still better than, I dunno, Congress deciding it didn't like the rulings of a judge in Florida and attempting to enact an ex post facto law...



This is a perfect example of why state right's need to be championed again......
I dunno, something about having differing state laws has always bothered me. I wish that we could just have individual rights defended more, but I know that there's no way every state could get to the same place on a lot of major decisions.

[Spooky]

i think the law will stay. Even though people may not like it, they'll vote it to stay because of state rights.

I'm for the law. I figure if someone realllllly doesn't want to live, then they'll find a way to do it anyway. So it might as well be a painless, controlled way like this.

[Justin_stacy]

A loose interpretation of the Constitution is still better than, I dunno, Congress deciding it didn't like the rulings of a judge in Florida and attempting to enact an ex post facto law....
The only reason for someone wanting a loose interpretation of the constitution, is because the document itself is interfering with their said goals...........so the point was, just by looking at recent history which political ideology would find the constitution “most pesky," conservatives, as you tried to state, or liberals?

I dunno, something about having differing state laws has always bothered me. I wish that we could just have individual rights defended more, but I know that there's no way every state could get to the same place on a lot of major decisions.

There is a limit to the level of "individual" rights society can provide, without losing control. But since we are already sectioned off, for lack of a better term, into individual states, which originally were supposed to have certain levels of autonomy, it is possible for us to have differing laws for differing states, with some restrictions. Think of the level of peace that this could create? Every major hot button issue that is tearing our nation apart could be quieted.

Now of course this is not an end conclusion but it is better then what we have now.

[Kid Kilowatt]

I am all for a strict interpretation of the constitution. Then, the French government can worry about cleaning up Katrina.

[Justin_stacy]

Then, the French government can worry about cleaning up Katrina.

I don't understand the logic behind that statement, but i think socialist france has shown its own inablities to react to natural disasters...

European heat wave of 2003

France
14,847 people [[1]], mostly elderly, died in France from heat, according to the country's largest funeral service. France does not commonly have very hot summers, particularly in the northern areas. As a consequence, most people do not know how to react to very high temperatures (for instance, with respect to hydration), and most homes and retirement homes are not equipped with air conditioning. Furthermore, while there are contingency plans for a variety of catastrophes and natural events, high heat had never been considered a major hazard and so such plans for heat waves did not exist at the time.

The heat wave occurred in August, a month in which many people, including government ministers and physicians, are on vacation.

Many bodies were not claimed for many weeks because relatives were on holiday. A refrigerated warehouse outside Paris was used by undertakers, because they didn't have enough space in their own facilities. On September 3, 57 bodies still left unclaimed in the Paris area were buried.

That shortcomings of the nation's health system could allow such a death toll is a matter of controversy in France. The administration of President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin laid the blame on

the 35-hour workweek
family practitioners vacationing in August. (Many companies traditionally closed in August, so people had no choice about when to vacation. Family doctors were still in the habit of vacationing at the same time.)
families who leave their elderly behind without caring for them.
The opposition as well as many of the editorials of the local press have blamed the administration. Many blamed Health Minister Jean-François Mattei for not coming back from his vacations when the heat wave struck, and his aides for blocking emergency measures in public hospitals (such as the recalling of physicians). A particularly vocal critic was Dr Patrick Pelloux, head of the union of emergency physicians, who blamed the Raffarin administration for ignoring warnings from health and emergency professionals and trying to minimize the crisis.

Jean-François Mattei was not kept as a minister following from the March 31, 2004 cabinet shuffle


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Heat_Wave_of_2003
http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/1565.cfm

Sounds like the French wouldn't have fared any better then the Democrats in New Orleans......

[Kid Kilowatt]

I was being facetious. My point was the ability to buy Louisiana from the French in the 1800's wasn't strictly outlined, yet we still bought it.

[believethehyph]

I believe if the person truely wants to die, and has a poor quality of life etc. then they should be allowed to die.

[noodledancer]

if you think about it a dnr order is a type of assisted suicide. under normal conditions, it's a physicians responsible to do everything possible to save a patient. by not acting, they're facilitating the inevitable death of a serious ill individual.

i think people should be allowed the power of choice when it comes to their health. people like to have options- it's comforting. a woman can choose to have an abortion or not. people can choose assisted suicide or not. i don't think it's the government's place to limit or prohibit such choices.

[Alex Djaferis]

assisted suicide...touchy subject. Im still very undecided on it. If someone is constantly in pain and is close to death...i suppose it could be done. but the problem is, the more it happens, the more the 'rules' for it will be bent and the more lax it will become...and then we will have another huge problem on our hands...possibly people who want to die faking that they are in more pain then they actually are etc etc...

[Louballs]

1) If we can all agree that a person should have the right to end their life if they see fit, then the physician's assistance shouldn't present a problem. Procedural safeguards (documenting the illness/condition that exists, etc.) would make sure that it wasn't imposed on ineligible people. Further, the idea that it would be abused at the expense of the poor, African-Americans, etc., is ludicrous. Medical procedures of ANY sort are fucking expensive. Why would anyone--particularly the poor--seek out such a remedy if they didn't absolutely feel that they needed it?

2) It's not a matter of "conservative" or "liberal"; when it comes to the Constitution, those are irrelevant terms. "Conservatives" supposedly want a "strict" interpretation of the Constitution when it lets them outlaw abortion or get rid of affirmative action, but a "loose" interpretation when it lets them outlaw gay marriage because of the bible. Liberals want a "strict" interpretation when it prohibits prayer in school or a 10 Commandments display in a courthouse, but a "loose" interpretation to protect abortion or homosexuality. Politics don't equate to a particular constitutional interpretation.

3) As for who appoints what type of justices, well there's an old saying: "The President appoints, and the justices disappoint." Eisenhower (huge conservative) appointed Earl Warren (big time liberal). After Brown v. Board of Education, Eisenhower said that appointing Warren was the worst mistake he ever made.

[johnx]

This is (along with abortion and homosexuality) a very moral topic. It all depends on your religion I think. As a catholic I believe that only God can take human life. Now I do not agree with suicide or attempted suicide. But I do believe that if you are going to die in a short amount of days, and you want your family to pull the plug or you ask the doctor too, he should be able to. When there is no hope, don't linger on something that is not possible. If death is inevitible, just let them die peacefully rather than painfully.

I've had friends who were at the point of suicide and I knew a kid who actually commited it, so I really hate talking about it. I think it's wrong period. If you are having problems at home or you are having problems in your life, there is help with parents and teachers and friends..suicide isn't the answer.

[Louballs]

This is (along with abortion and homosexuality) a very moral topic. It all depends on your religion I think.
Which is precisely why the government (federal, at least) shouldn't touch it.

[commatosa]

why the fuck would you need assisted suicide? What's wrong with jumping off a building or dropping a toaster in the tub, or putting a gun in your mouth? If you can't do it yourself, then by all means, a doctor should help you. But if you can, why not just do it yourself? If you want to die, then go die. You don't need a doctor to give you drugs that might not even do the job and put you in a coma. Ridiculous.

[Justin_stacy]

Which is precisely why the government (federal, at least) shouldn't touch it.


That is so stupid, every law takes some stand on society's perception of the difference between right and wrong, or morality.

If government can't touch this issue because of the "moral" arguements surrounding it, how do you justify them taking stands on other equally "moral" based issues such as the death penalty? or Abortion?

why the fuck would you need assisted suicide? What's wrong with jumping off a building or dropping a toaster in the tub, or putting a gun in your mouth? If you can't do it yourself, then by all means, a doctor should help you. But if you can, why not just do it yourself? If you want to die, then go die. You don't need a doctor to give you drugs that might not even do the job and put you in a coma. Ridiculous.

I think the people in question here are beyond the point of walking to a cliff or even bathing themselves.....hence the want or willingness to die....

[johnx]

If you are willing to take your own life, do you think you can be completely sane? Nah, something has to click..you have to sort of go a little crazy to do that.

[the_narrator]

That is so stupid, every law takes some stand on society's perception of the difference between right and wrong, or morality.

If government can't touch this issue because of the "moral" arguements surrounding it, how do you justify them taking stands on other equally "moral" based issues such as the death penalty? or Abortion?
I always thought the federal laws were the society's perception of how a society should work in public interactions. They were based on a certain standard of ethics, but it does more to help the entirety of the state. As in, you lose your rights when you stomp on someone else's.

I think when it comes to individual morality, that is subjective and cannot be made as a generalized statement. We all hold the ability to do the right thing, even if no one is watching us. That is integrity. I'm for assisted suicide (if they are either deemed mentally competant or have given consent for non-assistance in case of a wreck), for abortion, for homosexual rights, for marijuana use, and against the death penalty. However, I would not engage in most of those.

Actually, I have a question, not really a debate. Does anyone know the normal way assisted suicide is done? I know in Terry's case, they unhooked her feeding tube. Does this happen every time or just because she was brain-dead? Was there any documentation of her saying "I do not want assistance?"

[I am all talk]

I always thought the federal laws were the society's perception of how a society should work in public interactions. They were based on a certain standard of ethics, but it does more to help the entirety of the state. As in, you lose your rights when you stomp on someone else's.

I think when it comes to individual morality, that is subjective and cannot be made as a generalized statement. We all hold the ability to do the right thing, even if no one is watching us. That is integrity. I'm for assisted suicide (if they are either deemed mentally competant or have given consent for non-assistance in case of a wreck), for abortion, for homosexual rights, for marijuana use, and against the death penalty. However, I would not engage in most of those.

Actually, I have a question, not really a debate. Does anyone know the normal way assisted suicide is done? I know in Terry's case, they unhooked her feeding tube. Does this happen every time or just because she was brain-dead? Was there any documentation of her saying "I do not want assistance?"
They only state that has physician assisted suicide is Oregon. There is a long process involving multiple requests for the prescription. The main criteria is that the patient must have a incurable disease and also within an estimated six months of death. The physician gives him/her a prescription but cannot administer it. Terri Schiavo technically wasn't physician assisted suicide. Yes they did pull her feeding tube but according to the law only Oregon has legalized it. Schiavo was a very, very unique case. These pills aren't for those with brain damage among other problems. They are for those in pain and under a short deadline.

[the_narrator]

They only state that has physician assisted suicide is Oregon. There is a long process involving multiple requests for the prescription. The main criteria is that the patient must have a incurable disease and also within an estimated six months of death. The physician gives him/her a prescription but cannot administer it. Terri Schiavo technically wasn't physician assisted suicide. Yes they did pull her feeding tube but according to the law only Oregon has legalized it. Schiavo was a very, very unique case. These pills aren't for those with brain damage among other problems. They are for those in pain and under a short deadline.
Okay, so, what are the pills made out of chemically? Cyanide? Is it painless? Do you know how long it generally takes after they take it for them to die? Or even how long it takes for them to get the pill? And what if the patient can't lift their arms to take it?

Thanks for the feedback. I thought assisted suicide was in a few more states, but apparently not.

[Justin_stacy]

I always thought the federal laws were the society's perception of how a society should work in public interactions. They were based on a certain standard of ethics, but it does more to help the entirety of the state. .

Or in similar words, society's perception of the difference between right and wrong, what is allowed and what isn't, good and bad behavior.......and being in accord with this concept would be what?

[Louballs]

Or in similar words, society's perception of the difference between right and wrong, what is allowed and what isn't, good and bad behavior.......and being in accord with this concept would be what?Those aren't similar words. The federal government, at least, doesn't technically act to determine "right and wrong." They have the power to set taxes, to develop the army, to regulate interstate commerce-- but these are only powers that were given them in order to facilitate the states working together. The federal government has no "right and wrong" power, which is why, when it comes to assisted suicide (which the government is regulating through its regulation of prescription medicines which is in turn regulated through the commerce power), it shouldn't (in my opinion) be basing its decisions on moral standards, at least not when it comes to laws that affect activity that solely affects an individual state.

Whether the state governments want to do that is, of course, an entirely different question. But that's not the issue here-- Oregon allows assisted suicide, and it's the federal government that's trying to override that.

[the_narrator]

Those aren't similar words. The federal government, at least, doesn't technically act to determine "right and wrong." They have the power to set taxes, to develop the army, to regulate interstate commerce-- but these are only powers that were given them in order to facilitate the states working together. The federal government has no "right and wrong" power, which is why, when it comes to assisted suicide (which the government is regulating through its regulation of prescription medicines which is in turn regulated through the commerce power), it shouldn't (in my opinion) be basing its decisions on moral standards, at least not when it comes to laws that affect activity that solely affects an individual state.

Whether the state governments want to do that is, of course, an entirely different question. But that's not the issue here-- Oregon allows assisted suicide, and it's the federal government that's trying to override that.
Thanks, I was about to say most of that. How society acts in interactions regulates laws on what is beneficials to citizens, such as "you should pay taxes," "you have the right of speech/religion" "you cannot steal." That doesn't determine what is right or wrong, merely it regulates how you cannot trample another's rights. I'm not going to say anymore, because this was a good post that covers my sentiments on federal law affecting morality.

[youcomebeforeyo]

Or in similar words, society's perception of the difference between right and wrong, what is allowed and what isn't, good and bad behavior.......and being in accord with this concept would be what?You get the great divide coming into play.

Christian southern communities generally would percieve it as wrong due to beliefs that life in sanctitude and a gift from god. The more liberal coastal states would believe that if someone is truely sick, suffering and in pain that assisted suicide is right.

Perhaps a referendum would allow society to judge, but I don't believe either side would have a convincing mandate.

[Justin_stacy]

Those aren't similar words. The federal government, at least, doesn't technically act to determine "right and wrong."

No technically they are, laws, no matter if they are federal, state, or locally made, are dictated morality......whether or not you agree with the body's right to make them, that is what laws are. It can't be any clearer.

They have the power to set taxes, to develop the army, to regulate interstate commerce-- but these are only powers that were given them in order to facilitate the states working together. The federal government has no "right and wrong" power, which is why, when it comes to assisted suicide (which the government is regulating through its regulation of prescription medicines which is in turn regulated through the commerce power), it shouldn't (in my opinion) be basing its decisions on moral standards, at least not when it comes to laws that affect activity that solely affects an individual state..

You know as well as I do that the powers designated to each branch under the constitution are no longer followed. Just look at the Judicial branch, primary the Supreme Court, which was given very little power or importance in the constitution, but over the years has turn its self into the strongest branch and given its self the duty of legislating, something the framers would have never wanted.
So you point is mute, every branch over steps its duty, and it has long been decided, by war no less, that state’s individual rights are on the bottom rung of the political power struggle.

It is also foolish to state that the federal government has no “right and wrong” powers to invalidate or override state laws, when they assert such powers on a daily basis. The forced uniformity of the nation’s laws shows this

Whether the state governments want to do that is, of course, an entirely different question. But that's not the issue here-- Oregon allows assisted suicide, and it's the federal government that's trying to override that.

You’ll note that I started this thread, and defended the personal act of suicide and the states right to in act the law, regardless of the fact that I disagreed with it and the cowardness of suicide. So that is not the argument, I agree with the idea, as any conservative should, that the Federal government shouldn’t have the right to over ride state centered laws nor should they be able to invalidate them, but this country as a whole no longer believes in state rights or defends them.

And the fact is the Supreme Court has up held/affirmed the legitimacy of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 on issues simialar to this, as recently as 03’. So your point that the Federal Government doesn’t have the “right” to dictate such things is not universally held.

But back to the point of concern, the part I took problem with, was your conclusion that because the arguments surrounding something are ”morally” based or charged, that governement, shouldn’t be able to touch the issue. Which is just utter nonsesnse, every issue, as with every law, is morally charged, otherwise it wouldn’t be a point of concern to anyone. Morality is not necassarly tied to religion, as beleiving in and undstanding the difference between right and wrong, does not have to be tied to beliefs in a higher being.

You get the great divide coming into play.

Christian southern communities generally would percieve it as wrong due to beliefs that life in sanctitude and a gift from god. The more liberal coastal states would believe that if someone is truely sick, suffering and in pain that assisted suicide is right.

Perhaps a referendum would allow society to judge, but I don't believe either side would have a convincing mandate.

There in lies the problem with an all knowing all powerful centralized governement. Individually communities are not allowed to live as they choose, and local referendums wouldn't matter, as it can all be overturned.

This whole case from the standpoint of Washington is about keeping the power to dictate morality of this level in Washington and to keeep the uniformaty of the nations laws.......no one cares what the people of Oregon think, because on a national level the majority of states feel differently.

[Louballs]

No technically they are, laws, no matter if they are federal, state, or locally made, are dictated morality......whether or not you agree with the body's right to make them, that is what laws are. It can't be any clearer.
No, laws are not "technically" dictated morality. Laws are "technically" rules of conduct promulgated by the government, which the people must abide by at penalty of punishment. Is it immoral to drive over the speed limit, or drink under age? No. Laws are not inherently morality-based, but some laws are so motivated.

You know as well as I do that the powers designated to each branch under the constitution are no longer followed. Just look at the Judicial branch, primary the Supreme Court, which was given very little power or importance in the constitution, but over the years has turn its self into the strongest branch and given its self the duty of legislating, something the framers would have never wanted.
So you point is mute, every branch over steps its duty, and it has long been decided, by war no less, that state’s individual rights are on the bottom rung of the political power struggle.
I'm assuming you mean my point is moot (although technically, I guess, you can't hear me). I take issue with the ridiculous assertion that the judicial branch was given "very little or importance" in the Constitution. The basis of our federal government is separation of powers and checks and balances, which only works if the judicial branch has power to limit the other two branches to their constitutional duties. And although I admit there are certain instances where it appears the Court is "legislating from the bench," those instances are few and far between.

It is also foolish to state that the federal government has no “right and wrong” powers to invalidate or override state laws, when they assert such powers on a daily basis. The forced uniformity of the nation’s laws shows this
First off, the Supremacy Clause (which I'm assuming is what you're referring to by "the forced uniformity of the nation's laws") hardly illustrates a "right and wrong" power. More accurately, it illustrates exactly what I was talking about: The power to facilitate the states' interaction with each other. Second, my point is not that the government doesn't use its powers as "right and wrong" powers-- merely that it shouldn't. The point of federalism (if you've read any of the Federalist papers) is that the federal government is there to help the states coexist as a nation, while the states act as "laboratories for democracy" in being able legislate "moral" issues on a smaller scale--thereby letting the populace move to states that represent their beliefs. And it it's "foolish" to state that the federal government has no "right and wrong" power, well-- show me where in the Constitution such a power would come from. Please.

And the fact is the Supreme Court has up held/affirmed the legitimacy of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 on issues simialar to this, as recently as 03’. So your point that the Federal Government doesn’t have the “right” to dictate such things is not universally held.
First of all, don't put things in quotation marks if I didn't say them. The federal government doesn't have rights, it has powers under the Constitution. And I realize that the CSA has been upheld by the Court; it was actually most recently upheld this past summer, preempting California's medical marijuana laws. My point is that it shouldn't--again, this is just my opinion--be allowed to use its power under the Commerce Clause (which is where the CSA comes from) to legislate morality on a state level.

But back to the point of concern, the part I took problem with, was your conclusion that because the arguments surrounding something are ”morally” based or charged, that governement, shouldn’t be able to touch it Which is just utter nonsesnse, every issue, as with every law, is morally charged, otherwise it wouldn’t be a point of concern to anyone. Morality is not necassarly tied to religion, as beleiving in and undstanding the difference between right and wrong, does not have to be tied to beliefs in a higher being.
1) I didn't say that government shouldn't be able to touch them, just that the federal government shouldn't be able to. My reasons for thinking this are based in history (see above).

2) Not everything that's a "point of concern" is morally charged. Many laws don't address personal morals; rather, they address the potential for an individual to affect another's interests against their will. Speeding isn't wrong, but when you speed, you pose a danger (theoretically) to others on the road, which the government (and the public, presumably) wants to protect against.

3) Morality doesn't have to be tied to religion for me to think that the government shouldn't touch it. When an action affects someone else (i.e. murder, rape, robbery, etc.), then the protection of the other person's interests justifies the law. But when it doesn't (drug laws, prostitution laws, etc.) then I don't think there's any damn reason why the government should be able to dictate that. (And I'm not alone in that opinion--look up John Stuart Mill, a respected social theorist.) This is why I think suicide laws are ridiculous.

4) When the morality in the law is tied to religion, then we go back to the Constitution, and the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. And this is another reason why I disagree with suicide laws--ask people who support anti-suicide laws why they do so, and more than half of them will respond "because it's a sin." That's a good reason to condemn suicide personally, but it ain't a good reason to impose those beliefs on others.


Feel free to disagree.