Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 1/17/2006 6:26:32 AM EDT
Just in on cnn.com. No details yet. Poll to follow.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 6:27:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2006 6:27:45 AM EDT by adair_usmc]
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 6:27:57 AM EDT
wow- if upheld, it likely chips away at the powers of the federal government to set drug policy in individual states, because that's what the feds were arguing gave them the power to stop the law.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 6:32:17 AM EDT
I agree with the decision, but the reason for it sucks.

They basically said, the Fed has the power to make laws for health and safety, but this is a special case so we'll bless it...

Link Posted: 1/17/2006 6:45:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
I agree with the decision, but the reason for it sucks.

They basically said, the Fed has the power to make laws for health and safety, but this is a special case so we'll bless it...




Explain. Where does the Fed have the power to regulate standards of medical care? There have been a long line of decisions that they don't have such power -- which is why the drug laws were originally passed as "tax acts".
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 11:18:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By wolfman97:

Originally Posted By Dino:
I agree with the decision, but the reason for it sucks.

They basically said, the Fed has the power to make laws for health and safety, but this is a special case so we'll bless it...




Explain. Where does the Fed have the power to regulate standards of medical care? There have been a long line of decisions that they don't have such power -- which is why the drug laws were originally passed as "tax acts".



Thats the problem, its not a power they should have, but the SC is saying they do.

Thats why I said good decision but the reason for it sucks.

Link Posted: 1/17/2006 11:21:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2006 11:21:18 AM EDT by TomJefferson]
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 11:27:04 AM EDT
I like it just because it is one less right that the fed gov will have.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 11:30:38 AM EDT
THis has nothing to do with interstate commerce. This is a State's right to determine.

I support the limitation on the federal government and upholding State's rights.

I voted yes for supporting the ruling.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 11:33:22 AM EDT
The dissenting opinions have some interesting things:

Scalia, writing the dissent, said that federal officials have the power to regulate the doling out of medicine.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 11:52:51 AM EDT
The Court made its ruling based upon an analysis of the powers created and delegated under the Controlled Substances Act.

The Court found that while the Act does give the Feds the power to regulate and maintain the security and access to the substances controlled under the Act, the Act did not give the Feds the power to determine or regulate the standard of care, or appropriate practice of medicine.

This is a power retained by the States by virtue of the licensing scheme for physicians, that is itself recognized in the CSA.

It is a States vs Feds powers issue, but very narrowly construed under the provisions of the Controlled Substances Act, as that is the only law before the Court, and the one cited by the Feds as the basis of their actions.

The Feds retain the powers of control of access, security and dispensing of scheduled drugs, but doesn't currently have any power to define the practice of medicine.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 1:33:46 PM EDT
Doesn't this kind of contradict the recent decision that says that despite medical marijuana laws at the State level, the Feds still have the power to prosecute people for having/growing/distributing it because State law can't trump Federal law?


-K
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 1:38:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Special-K:
Doesn't this kind of contradict the recent decision that says that despite medical marijuana laws at the State level, the Feds still have the power to prosecute people for having/growing/distributing it because State law can't trump Federal law?


-K


yes, it does.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 1:41:26 PM EDT
I beelive PA suicide is reprehensible, but it prolly should be a states rights issue.

I'd gladly votet for it as a states rights issue if EVERYTHING that SHOULD be a states rights issue actually was. IF the Fed gov't would be consistent in their application of states rights.

No more Fed gun laws, etc etc etc.

Link Posted: 1/17/2006 1:44:33 PM EDT
As an Oregon resident, I voted other. Here's why:

I think if someone wants to kill themselves, why not. I really don't care. I believe it's a violation of the hypocratic oath for doctors to prescribe and/or administer lethal meds, so they should not do that. If they do, they get their license revoked for violating their oath. If a doctor feels it's that important, he/she will do it. I'm pretty sick of the feds sticking their fingers into everything.

For all those religious types who believe suicide is a sin: STFU. I don't tell anyone else how to live their live. You think commiting suicide will make you go to hell, don't commit suicide. Let others make their own decisions.

The real irritation I have, is the flip-flopping of the USSC on various states rights issues for no discernable purpose. Residents (and their doctors) of OR can violate federal drug laws, but you can't grow your own weed for personal consumption. I believe both of these are covered under interstate commerce.

Interesting: I wonder how money figures into this. It may sound pretty cynical, but I see it in the government's best interest to let people off themselves. That way they won't have to pay soc. sec. and medicare benefits... Just a thought.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 2:15:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:
As an Oregon resident, I voted other. Here's why:

I think if someone wants to kill themselves, why not. I really don't care. I believe it's a violation of the hypocratic oath for doctors to prescribe and/or administer lethal meds, so they should not do that. If they do, they get their license revoked for violating their oath. If a doctor feels it's that important, he/she will do it. I'm pretty sick of the feds sticking their fingers into everything.

For all those religious types who believe suicide is a sin: STFU. I don't tell anyone else how to live their live. life You think commiting suicide will make you go to hell, don't commit suicide. Let others make their own decisions.

The real irritation I have, is the flip-flopping of the USSC on various states rights issues for no discernable purpose. Residents (and their doctors) of OR can violate federal drug laws, but you can't grow your own weed for personal consumption. I believe both of these are covered under interstate commerce.

Interesting: I wonder how money figures into this. It may sound pretty cynical, but I see it in the government's best interest to let people off themselves. That way they won't have to pay soc. sec. and medicare benefits... Just a thought.



+1
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 2:20:25 PM EDT
I agree with the decision, this is none of the fed.gov's business.

My problem with this case lies wholly with the SCOTUS. Lets look at who voted where on this case. Scalia, Roberts and Thomas, our three most conservative <cough> justices, those who claim the mantle of constructionists, where in favor of the expansion of federal powers. Breyer, Ginsburgh, Souter and the other lefty whose name escapes me at the moment, our most reliably liberal justices, voted in favor of states rights.

This is a complete reversal of their traditional positions. Why would they do this? Because not one of them actually considered the constitutionality of the case. The liberals have embraced assisted suicide, so the liberal justices voted for it. Conservatives have decried assisted suicide as a sin, so the conservative justices voted against it. They voted 100% down the party political line, with no regard whatsoever to their constitutional duties. I am sickened and saddened for us all.

CO
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 2:21:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2006 2:21:48 PM EDT by NimmerMehr]

Originally Posted By ImplementOfWar:
THis has nothing to do with interstate commerce. This is a State's right to determine.



Here is a fucked up case to counter point, and I'm being silly on purpose.

More people chose assisted suicied, so the amount of commerse goes up for the drugs used in the sucide, so then (based on the machine gun/pot SC rules) then feds and stop it because assisted sucied wouldthen fall under the commerse clause.

forgive the spelling.
Top Top