Happy as a Clam
[Posted by The Angry Clam]
Even though the Supreme Court upheld Oregon’s assisted suicide law, about which I am concerned due to the number of reports of forced euthanasia of older people in other jurisdictions with such laws (for example, in the Netherlands, many older people refuse to go to the hospital for treatment because they fear for their lives), I’m pleased by the voting pattern.
It was a 6-3 decision. In dissent? Justices Scalia and Thomas as well as Chief Justice Roberts. When he was confirmed, I was quite concerned that Roberts would be (if slightly) to the left of Chief Justice Rehnquist. However, seeing him joining with my main man Nino makes me very, very, pleased.
– The Angry Clam
It won’t be long before the elderly will be afraid to go to a hospital in Or. either, and most likely with good cause. This kill em because they’re old program has been tried before and kind of petered out then the supporters of the program ‘got old’ and realized, we’re next.
scrapiron (a90377) — 1/17/2006 @ 8:05 amThe case, however, wasn’t about euthanasia, it was about state’s rights and the limits on federal regulation of powers historically held by states or the people thereof.
I’d view this as a victory for federalism rather than some results-oriented focus on the subject matter.
Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 1/17/2006 @ 8:57 am[…] Quite disappointing, but we will join others in finding comfort in the way the voting pattern went. Conservatives can find some reassurance in the fact that Roberts did join Scalia and Thomas in the dissent. [Comments_(0)] [Printable_Version] [Permalink] [Trackback_URI] [Trackback URI] right click+copy shortcut [RSS feed for comments on this post.] […]
Stop The ACLU » Blog Archive » Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law (c485fa) — 1/17/2006 @ 9:02 amIt was about both, KM.
And, as we saw in the Raich case, federalism bumps up against the possibility that a lone state could, by its refusal of a federal law, nullify the entire enforcement scheme.
Henry Clay this isn’t.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 1/17/2006 @ 9:13 amI’ve got a feeling….one more SCOTUS appointment and things may break back the other way.
Once again people will feel confident that judges can understand what “shall make no law” and “shall not be abridged” mean.
One more appointment.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 1/17/2006 @ 9:26 am[…] Update: The Clam is happy to have lost. […]
SayUncle » States’ rights (9b413a) — 1/17/2006 @ 10:00 amI got all juiced up about this case until I found out it was an admin law case. I hate Mead deference.
But it is good to know that CJ Roberts has seen that influential documentary Logan’s Run.
Matto Ichiban (561b5a) — 1/17/2006 @ 10:01 amRenew! Renew!
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 1/17/2006 @ 10:06 amAbout this: “in the Netherlands, many older people refuse to go to the hospital for treatment because they fear for their lives”
It would be worthwhile posting a link to support this statement, don’t you think?
Bostonian (a37519) — 1/17/2006 @ 10:45 amThis case ain’t about federalism or the Constitution, just about Congress’s intent – or lack thereof – to meddle in an affair that Raich v. Ashcroft established, and even the respondents all but conceded (see footnote 2 to Justice Thomas’s dissent) Congress could have meddled in.
Move along, people, there’s nothing to see here. Not unless you’re some sick, old guy planning to kill himself in Oregon, that is.
Xrlq (6c76c4) — 1/17/2006 @ 10:45 amXRLQ – the impression I got when I skimmed it on the way to work was that it is also about what level of deference is due the attorney general’s interpretation of the words of the statute.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/17/2006 @ 11:10 amBostonian,
here you go.
I’m aware that it is an opinion column by the nominally conservative Debra Saunders, please don’t freak out about that.
I’m trying to find the articles I read from the BBC and from several Dutch news websites about this (if I can find those, I’ll post a translation as well).
The big euthanasia scandal with the Netherlands currently, which makes finding those articles again difficult in all the clutter, is the revelation that there is a substantial amount of forced euthanasia of newborns in Dutch hospitals.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 1/17/2006 @ 11:32 amI too would very much like to see anything you could link to supporting the Netherlands stuff. If true, how awful. And newborns? What? And why?
If these things are true I think people in the U.S. should become aware, given the direction some things have been going for so long.
Laura (d77547) — 1/17/2006 @ 11:48 amLaura, see the link above.
Like I said, I’m going to fetch the primary documents, but I highly doubt that it would be wildly inaccurate when named by name.
That, and the Lancet is very well respected, so they’d probably get mad if mischaracterized.
EDIT: Just saw you wanted some infant euthanasia links. Here are a few. Note that the sources are not things like NewsMax.com, PROLIFEMAGAZINE, or whatever. A Google News search will turn up plenty more.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 1/17/2006 @ 11:50 amSo can we ban guns to prevent suicide?
Perhaps gun store owners need to look out for the sanity of their customers.
Of course pain goes undermedicted in this country to prevent drug dealing and suicide. A small price to pay, eh?
M. Simon (520f61) — 1/17/2006 @ 12:21 pmSupreme Court upholds State?s Rights! Though the positions ar
Generally speaking people on the Right or Conservative side of the political spectrum believe in state rights. Anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States should be decided at a state level, at least that is the visi
cinomed.blog-city.com (054c2e) — 1/17/2006 @ 12:30 pmSo, Clam, you’re happy ’cause Roberts voted with Nino? That’s it? Harriet Miers could’ve done that.
TNugent (6128b4) — 1/17/2006 @ 12:43 pmTNugent: CJ Roberts would know WHY he is voting with “Nino”
quasimodo (edc74e) — 1/17/2006 @ 12:53 pmTNugent, I think you misunderstand.
We knew Roberts was brilliant and qualified. The question was how committed he was to a conservative jurisprudence. I feared that the answer was “not very.” Thus, votes like this are reassuring.
We knew that Miers was unqualified. We were assured that this did not matter because she would “vote the right way.” That might turn out to mean that she was unqualified and a vote for the wrong side.
1 out of 2 (as we had with Roberts) isn’t very good, so I’m pleased we’re back at 2 out of 2.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 1/17/2006 @ 1:07 pmClam,
lincoln (f075ad) — 1/17/2006 @ 1:08 pmComing from a dr’s perspective,I’m worried about reports I’ve read from Holland.First,we are all aware of the vast amount of resources used on hopeless cases.I’m not going to address that.But there seems to be a not so subtle case being made that the elderly,which I hope to join someday,are selfish to continue living.In other words,you’re using government and personal assets that a young person could be .And don’t underestimate the amount of sheer clout a dr. has on their patients.They often think of us as “Priest-Scientists”.
This will be an interesting experiment,especially if budget balancing benefits of euthanasia are trumpeted.
Clam, I don’t think I misunderstood at all. My point is this: what happens when commitment to political conservatism runs head-on into a faithful interpretation of the constitution and laws? What will it take to make you happy then? Would a reliably conservative (politically) Miers do the trick, or would you demand intellectual integrity even if it means sacrificing the result that self-described political conservatives tend to favor? Judges seeking particular political (i.e., policy) results led us to our present Constitutional mess, with the Constitution meaning whatever 9 judges say it means. That problem has been manifest in supposedly “liberal” results, but left-right is a nothing but a head-fake. Don’t fall for it. What has to be defended, above all, is federalism. Not any particular result, but the system that leaves policy-making where the Constitution contemplates. And that starts with judicial conservatism, as distinguished from political conservatism.
I don’t think this is a “federalism” case; it’s a case of statutory interpretation, that’s all. And the Court’s coming down against the AG’s rule-making as a matter of statutory interpretation, rather than making a contrary finding which would then have required a constitutional interpretation on the federalism issue is judicial conservatism. Assuming that the majority didn’t clearly get the statutory interpretation wrong, isn’t that what we wanted?
TNugent (6128b4) — 1/17/2006 @ 1:28 pmThe case was decided on narrow statutory grounds, I agree that much.
However, I believe that was incorrect, and done (unprincipledly, not in a Bickelian manner) so that the Court would not have to address the constitutional issue.
I believe that the statutory interpretation question should have been resolved in favor of the Attorney General, given the general structure of regulatory law providing the authority to fill in statutory gaps (like what “medical purpose” means) to the agency tasked with enforcement (the DOJ in this case).
The Court, then, should have examined whether the AG’s application of the CSA violated any constitutional commands. I do not believe it did, either textually (as these drugs have travelled in interstate commerce; they are not manufactured in Oregon) or based on the Court’s own (and recent!) precedent in Raich v. Ashcroft.
I suspect, and I cannot be sure, given that I was not in conference, that the Justices in the majority were aware that, should they uphold the regulation, they would be forced to either apply Raich to a fact pattern they do not like, or to essentially abandon the case as a constitutional outlier. I do not think they were willing to do either, and so opted to avoid the issue.
The task now is for Congress to amend the statute to supersede this case, and see what the Court does then.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 1/17/2006 @ 1:37 pm“given the general structure of regulatory law providing the authority to fill in statutory gaps (like what “medical purpose” means”
So, you don’t buy the majority’s rationale that legitimate medical purpose is to be determined by reference to state law (among other things), and the AG didn’t have authority to say euthanasia wasn’t a legitimate medical purpose when the State said that it was? What keeps the AG from using “legitimate medical purpose” to contradict other determinations made by a State in its regulation of the practice of medicine? I’m not suggesting that the AG could (or would) do anything to disrupt relatively non-controversial policies, but let’s suppose Roe is overturned, so that abortion is no longer considered a constitutional right. If the dissenters had come out on top, would the AG get to say that abortion isn’t a legitimate medical purpose, even in a state whose laws permit abortion, and thereby prohibit the use of federally controlled substances in such procedures? Think there might be a bit of backlash following such a move by the AG?
From a partisan viewpoint, if nothing else, keeping our eyes on the federalism ball is a good way to avoid short-sighted political overreach.
TNugent (6128b4) — 1/17/2006 @ 2:23 pmGotta love Nino, whether or not you agree with his dissent:
“Since the Regulation does not run afowl (so to speak) of the Court’s newly invented prohibition of ‘parroting’ . . . . “
TNugent (6128b4) — 1/17/2006 @ 2:31 pmYou’re overlooking a key point- the AG has this power because of a Congressional statute that delegated the rulemaking ability to him.
That statute still needs to pass constitutional muster itself under the Commerce Clause, which, as I noted, I think the Controlled Substances Act does. In such cases, the desires and wants of the state are irrelevant.
I’m not so sure that (1) the AG has, or would have, delegated regulatory powers in those areas or (2) that if Congress tried to, they would be able to Constitutionally delegate such powers.
I’m not interested in federalism or states’ rights for its own sake (see, for example, my disparaging comment about the Nullification Doctrine)- I’m interested in it insofar as the current system of federal/state relations has gotten away from the constitutional plan. Some “federalism” elements were explicitly rejected by the change from the Articles of Incorporation to the Constitution, and I don’t think those should be revived simply because we’ve decided federalism is a great thing.
EDIT: As pointed out, I’ve spent way too long doing corporate law today. It should read the “Articles of Confederation.”
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 1/17/2006 @ 3:08 pmtnugent: a state’s opinion of legitimate purpose would be informative, but it can’t be dispositive. i think that is what Scalia was going after with his much quoted and little understood bit about – loosely paraphrased – prohibiting administration of a controlled substance in lethal doses is well within the legitimate purpose provision. if it wasn’t, that would have afforded a valid objection to the federal govt.’s interpretation of its law.
slickdpdx (fbbb81) — 1/17/2006 @ 3:12 pmTNugent: If I understand you correctly, in close statutory interpretation cases that raise federalism issues, you favor interpreting the statute in a way that protects states’ interests. This avoids the constitutional question, and as long as the reasoning is not plainly wrong, the result is the desireable one. (I may be over generalizing, but I think this is the broad point you were making).
One big problem is that it isn’t very desirable to wreck administrative law in the process. Here, as Clam and slick point out, the AG could look to state law, but it was not dispositive. By contrast, the decision of the AG should have been dispositive to the Court as a matter of federal law. To resolve this, the Court crafts some rather interesting new administrative law doctrines that could have far reaching impact. This could inject uncertainty into the law, and is a high price to pay for a good states rights result.
In the end, the majority should be criticized by modern federalism advocates for reaching this result in such a roundabout way that will have little or no impact on future federalism cases while possibly having a negative impact on administrative law cases.
Matto Ichiban (561b5a) — 1/17/2006 @ 4:12 pmClam, I’m thinking of the same statute and the same claimed basis for rulemaking authority, and a similar rationale employed by the AG to reach a conclusion that is similar to the AG action on the euthanasia law in that it would have the effect of imposing a federal prohibition on a medical procedure permitted by state law. Are federally controlled substances used during the course of an abortion procedure? I would bet that the ansewer is “yes.” The same basis for AG authority claimed in the context of assisted suicide could be used in other contexts.
Just because the parts of the controlled substances statute that deal with interstate commerce involving controlled substances comply with the Constitution doesn’t mean that everything in the statute gets a free pass. That’s overstating your position, but don’t you at least have to reconcile the commerce clause and the supposed gap that Gonzalez tried to fill with his policy decision on euthanasia? If not, then what’s to stop the federal government from preempting state regulation of the practice of medicine, at least the practice of medicine that involves the use of federally controlled substances? I don’t think euthanasia is something that a state should permit, either, but if Oregon wants to do so, I’m not willing to pretend that there’s a federal police power with which to stop them.
A few other things, Clam — First, if you’re at the point where you’re characterizing my objection to the AG’s case and the dissenting opinion as an argument for “federalism for its own sake” or a return to the pre-1787 arrangement, and not really related to the relationship between the states and the central government contemplated by the Constitution, then maybe you should get back to those Articles of Confederation or Incorporation that you’re drafting or confusing with former foundational documents (real work occasionally interferes with these discussions — I hate when that happens). Not even a federalist like Hamilton would have suggested that a Congressional act which regulated controlled substances in interstate commerce but which failed to define “legitimate medical purpose” would give the Attorney General an opening to overturn a state legislative determination regarding what medical procedures are legitimate. And if the rulemaking authority given to the AG were really as broad as you’re suggesting, there would have been a better justification for the rule than mere “gap filling” and the Court would have had to deal with the constitutional issue, rather than handling this case as a matter of statutory interpretation.
slick, saying that a state’s determination (it’s not just an opinion, slick, but a policy decision made by a state legislature) is informative but not necessarily dispositive doesn’t mean anything at all if the AG has authority to overrule the state legislature’s specific determination just because there’s a supposed “gap” in the federal statute, even in the absence of a specific authorization by Congress for such rulemaking? (Reality check: in what universe is the supposed gap really considered a “gap”? A legitimate medical procedure is one that state law permits to be performed by the medical professionals it licenses — we all know that legitimate medical procedure doesn’t mean something different when controlled substances are involved than when they’re not). So, the federal statute is potentially comprehensive regulation of the practice of medicine, but probably not as a practical matter, because on most issues the AG will agree with the State legislature? State determinations are informative only to the point where the AG or the President disagrees with the state legislature’s policy?
What’s the use of having judicial conservatives on the Court if they’re going to act just like Clinton appointees the first time they see a case with inconvenient facts?
TNugent (6128b4) — 1/17/2006 @ 4:33 pmMatto, I don’t disagree that the Court sidestepped the constitutional issue, and yes, I generally prefer a decision on non-constitutional grounds to a constitutional decision, when the law permits such a decision. A constitutional decision is untouchable by Congress or the State legislatures, whereas a statutory or administrative law decision is not and therefore does not remove the policy issue from the normal processes of representative democracy. I would favor a constitional decision where the interpretation of the statute requires it, but if it could go either way, I would opt for a bit of administrative turmoil rather than judicial policy-making at the expense of legislative authority. If the AG’s rule was entitled to deference if not clearly erroneous, then by all means, the court should have applied that standard and, if necessary, should have considered the constitutionality of the statute insofar as it authorized the rule.
Perhaps you’re familiar with the statute at issue — I’m not, but the majority stated pretty clearly that the AG rule wasn’t made pursuant to a delegation which entitled the rule to deference. Scalia and the other dissenters obviously disagreed, but I can’t take the time to read the dueling authority cites, so I’ll assume that neither the majority or the dissenters are just making it up (although the justices in the majority have a track record of doing just that). If the real issue was whether the federal government can prohibit a state from permitting euthanasia as a medical procedure, then maybe the Court should have taken on the constitutional question. It’s bound to come up again, whenever Congress gets around to addressing the euthanasia issue more directly, either by more clearly permitting rulemaking on the issue, or in the statute itself.
TNugent (6128b4) — 1/17/2006 @ 4:53 pmtnugent: the dissent does not advocate overruling Oregon’s law, it only states that Oregon’s law permitting physician assisted suicide doesn’t trump the federal statute regulating the use of drugs on the controlled substances list and its implementation by federal agencies. the AG wasn’t overruling Oregon, Oregon doesn’t get to regulate the controlled substances in a manner inconsistent with the federal regulations.
slickdpdx (fbbb81) — 1/17/2006 @ 4:59 pmThat’s just sophistry, slick. If docs in Ore. can’t use federally controlled substances to perform the procedure of euthanasia, it is the procedure, not just the use of the drugs, that is prohibited by a federal law. Oregon isn’t trying to regulate controlled substances in interstate commerce, it’s only attempting to regulate the practice of medicine (use of those controlled substances when prescribed by a licensed physician appears to be lawful in all of the other medical procedures which are ok under Oregon law, but not this one). Which is also what the federal government was trying to do and what the dissent would permit, your hair-splitting notwithstanding.
TNugent (6128b4) — 1/17/2006 @ 5:21 pmI was surprised by Thomas’ vote, until I heard the reasons for it. At least in part it’s a back-door attempt to weaken Raich by asserting he’s only voting in dissent against Oregon because of the standard set in Raich, and wondering why the majority is disowning their recent decision.
BTW, Clam, your worry that states could nullify federal law seems to imply that you see no limit to federal law applied to the states. How does this assertion play out in a post-Roe world? Could Congress ban abortions? Or require their availability? The partial-birth case coming up has a dimension here, I think, as a number of comments last year asserted that Congress cannot regulate in this area.
Kevin Murphy (9982dd) — 1/17/2006 @ 5:27 pmKevin-
That’s not the case. Like I said, the statute itself must pass constitutional muster, and I was simply noting that the CSA’s preemption of state laws to the contrary did very, very recently in Raich v. Ashcroft. That’s not to say that the federal government could pass a statute that violates the Constitution- for example, it could not coopt state law enforcement to federal law (Printz said so).
I think that, in a post-Roe world, Congress would have a very uphill battle if it sought to ban abortions entirely. Services and procedures tend to be inherently local, making it beyond the reach of Congressional power (barring, for the moment, the “comprehensive regulatory scheme” which, regardless, does not cover medical procedures, only medical products).
Congress could make it very difficult for abortions to occur by heavily regulating the interstate commerce in devices needed to perform them, but that could be avoided by homemade or locally produced items.
Likewise, I think that Congress could prohibit the interstate travel of persons or doctors for the purposes of participating in an abortion, since that does affect interstate commerce.
However, a post-Roe world would probably also look very different in the commerce clause cases, so who knows?
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 1/17/2006 @ 6:50 pmConstitutional law is not what it once was.
To prohibit commerece (as opposed to regulating it) it was once thought necesary to pass an Amendment to the Constitution.
However, in re: drugs Congress passed a tax stamp act andthen never issued a stamp. That dodge was declared wrong by the Supreme Court in 1970. Tim Leary’s doing.
So instead we get the controlled substance act.
Now if Congress didn’t have the power to ban stuff before 1970 (per the Supremes) how did it get it after 1970? Pass a different kind of law?
And where in the Constitution is the power to regulate medicine? That used to be a State function.
Well the ever expanding Commerce clause. Which conservative pretend they don’t like. Except when it gives them the desired outcome.
I’m comforted by Raich though. The government claimed that its intent was the creation of a black market. Which the court has said is in fact a legitimate function of government. You will be comforted to know that the Soviets operated on the same principle. Heaven knows it comforts me.
M. Simon (2e9173) — 1/17/2006 @ 11:46 pmI look forward to the day (I will be long dead) when the Supreme court has 5 Justices like Thomas.
In business and military action it is considered best practice to keep decision making at the lowest possible level. Our Federal Government operates on the opposite principle.
A lot of the pickle we are in is due to the direct election of Senators. They are no longer beholden to State Legislatures. Thus an important check on Federal power was removed. We are much the worse for it.
M. Simon (2e9173) — 1/17/2006 @ 11:56 pmLincoln,
Once government provides funds for medical practice it gets to decide how the funds can be spent.
Thus if it is too expensive to keep you alive the government will be cutting costs at your expense.
Welcome to the National “Health” Service.
Of course health insurance has similar incentives.
M. Simon (2e9173) — 1/18/2006 @ 12:12 amM. Simon – while it is true that the argument was made, during the controversy over the non-intercourse and embargo acts, that prohibiting commerce was not consistent with the constitution, it is also true that the federalists lost the debate, and the acts were passed.
Prohibiting commerce is something the Congress has done since the earliest years of the Republic, and it is something that a substantial population has always believed to be constitutional. You may disagree with that belief; but that doesn’t change the fact that it is not nearly as new as you would have it be.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/18/2006 @ 11:17 amClam, suppose (and I’m betting that my supposition is on the money) that euthanasia is the one and only example of a state-approved medical procedure being claimed by the AG as being outside the scope of legitimate medical procedure for purposes of federal controlled substance law (at least until Roe is overturned). Does that suggest to you that the AG’s rulemaking might just be regulation of the practice of medicine rather than regulation of controlled substances in interstate commerce? If not, then please give an example of what might be beyond Congress’ police pow — er, I mean, power to regulate interstate commerce.
TNugent (6128b4) — 1/18/2006 @ 11:46 amTNugent- it would only extend as far as the suicide/homicide was done through the use of federally regulated drugs.
The doctor could always open the patient’s veins in a warm bath, Roman-style, but somehow that seems a lot less like “practicing medicine” and a lot more like simply “killing someone.”
However, I do believe that it would be beyond the Attorney General’s regulatory power under the CSA, as no regulated drugs were involved.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 1/18/2006 @ 12:24 pmi like states rights and i dislike old people.
Win win for me.
cube (2236d8) — 1/18/2006 @ 4:17 pmClam, reading your latest comment, would it be fair to assume that your offering of a Roman-style alternative means you acknowledge that “controlled substances” fully occupies the set of drugs that would likely be useful in performing a euthanasia/assisted suicide procedure? And you agree that this application of (purported?) regulation of interstate commerce in controlled substances is really a determination made by the feds that docs shouldn’t participate in assisted suicide/euthanasia?
Whether or not one agrees with the feds on the substantive policy issue, and even if you think there’s really a valid constitutional foundation for this sort of regulation (I don’t: it stretches the commerce clause well beyond the breaking point; we might consider that the commerce clause is supposed to be a limit on federal power, not an open door to ever greater federal power), it’s still a very bad idea to take policy decisions regarding the practice of medicine out of the state legislatures. If this one had managed to get by the Court, I wouldn’t have been at all surprised if, post-overturning Roe (which will happen: it’s even becoming discredited among informed pro-choice voters), a Dem-majority congress (hopefully, we’ll never again see such a thing, but who knows?) managed to preempt state regulation of any abortion in which the doc performing it utilizes any federally controlled substance. My point isn’t to outlaw abortion or to permit it; rather, I would just like to restore to the states and remove from the federal government the power to make those laws concerning mainly what happens within the states, leaving to the federal government those matters of concern among the states.
Democratic tyranny becomes more likely as the the basic unit of government becomes larger, particularly if it’s dominated by geographically defined factions (such as blue-state coastal and Great Lakes regions, versus red flyover country and the South), and the nation, rather than the state, as the basic unit of government is what we move toward as we concede federal police powers. Make no mistake, probably more than half of all Democrats would like to see a USA in which the States were mere political subdivisions of the nation, the same way that counties are to states. There’s not much left of state sovereignty, but our country hasn’t yet degraded itself to the Dems’ vision of non-federalism, which has high-tax, low growth economic policy as its most most potentially destructive consequence. If the feds become responsible for what really should be state public policy, it follows that federal taxation, not state taxation, will pay for it all (we’re pretty far along now, but we’re not completely out of the game, yet). Wanna live in a country in which it makes no economic difference if you live in one state versus another because all are equally oppressive economically? That goes hand in hand with federal control of state and local policy, and that’s the Dems’ vision — because equal and universal application of poverty and misery, or at least government-dependent mediocrity, are what’s necessary to achieve the equality of results that is their priority (think world socialism writ somewhat smaller). That, Clam, is the big picture, not whether the state of Oregon or any other state can give terminally ill people the option of checking out with the help of a doctor. W and his AG shouldn’t need to be reminded of this.
TNugent (6128b4) — 1/19/2006 @ 11:52 amHere’s a cite on the fears of the elderly in the Netherlands from Dutch Disease Report:
Gina Cobb (41ce95) — 1/20/2006 @ 1:13 amaphrael,
Please explain why we needed an Amendment to prohibit alcohol? According to your interpretation such an Amendment was not required.
BTW Thomas’ dissent was chiding the court for not following its precident in Raich. When Roberts and Alito are long gone, law students will still be reading Thomas. He is smarter than Scalia.
And very oriented to the idea of limited government.
M. Simon (ef19f8) — 1/24/2006 @ 12:48 amaphrael,
I think the conclusion from the acts you point out and my point about alcohol prohibition is that Federal power extends to prohibiting what crosses Federal borders and not what crosses state borders.
Which would be a reasonable conclusion.
M. Simon (ef19f8) — 1/24/2006 @ 12:56 amThen why does it specify both interstate and international commerce?
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 1/24/2006 @ 4:38 am