(no subject)

[acroyear]

The conservative lie of "states rights" is pretty darn clear if you look at who dissented in the Oregon Suicide Law case at the Supreme Court today...

States seem to only have rights as long as they are doing things that make the majority federal government happy.  If the feds don't like it, the feds rule?

Is that how it was supposed to be?

Comments

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Really; if the federal government can't have a rule that says "thou shalt not use medicine to kill" then federal government really just needs to drop all regulation of medicine. Snake oil? Sure, why not

That's a slippery slope arguement and the dissenters know it. Its garbage.

Anything that CAN be made in one state and moved to another CAN also be made in the state of choice. The enforcement against medicinal marijuana is being done on constitutional grounds that are even weaker than this.

The Commerce clause involves the interstate transport of the material, not the use to which it is put to once it arrives in the hands of the customer in their state of choice.

If the feds want to stop certain activities involving materials that may cross state borders where their jurisdiction applies, then the feds need to get into state-to-state border checks, because once a product is in a state, a person has the right to do with it what they want provided the activity doesn't violate that state's own laws and constitution.

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

I disagree that the dissenters are presenting a slippery slope argument (though I certainly am, but only to make a point (in other words, the slippery slope part is mine).

The entire legality of the Food and Drug Administration and its rules, anti-drug laws, and cigarette restrictions are based on on the premises stated by the dissent.

One can certainly argue that the federal government has no business in those areas (as the Libertarian Party does), a position I am am not wholly in disagreement with. However, the Commerce Clause has been used by Congress for decades to extend the reach of federal involvement and jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court has endorsed that interpretation. If it crosses a state line more than minimally, the feds can regulate it. It's the same reason the federal government can issue laws restricting access to protesters at abortion clinics: people are crossing state lines to get abortions.

The dissent, in my opinion, is on solid legal and precedential ground in their argument. But in the current case, the other rights at issue outweigh the federal government's rights. The case might have turned out differently if the government's action had been based on a rule issued by the FDA instead of the Attorney General's opinion and order.

As I said, I'm sure we're going to see this again if people start going to Oregon in order to take advantage of the law.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

well, the catch about anything the FDA does is its always "why are you people getting involved in this that doesn't concern you", up until something goes drastically wrong like the cyanide-laced tylenol or e-coli infected meat, then its suddenly "where were you guys when all this happened?"

just like people willing to give up their rights to unwarrented search to the presidents current policy, people are libertarians only as long as they feel secure to be that way. when something goes wrong, many who think they are libertarian in some aspect immediately yell at the government for not doing something right rather than taking the personal responsibility that goes with personal freedom.

the real problem as far as public opinion goes is most people misassociate the constitutional question (was the interstate commerce clause legitimately applied) from the moral question (should assisted suicide be permitted for those suffering needlessly).

the constitution addresses no moral questions outside of the bill of rights, and those reflect the founders' attitudes on the morality of an interfering government alone, except where the 10th amendment fits in for the states.

both sides trying to use the court to back their moral agenda are wrong to do so, and a real examination of the history of the court shows that most morality cases get (correctly) deferred back to the state supreme court's opinion rather than have a national precedent set.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

The dissent, in my opinion, is on solid legal and precedential ground in their argument. But in the current case, the other rights at issue outweigh the federal government's rights.

which is my point, to a degree. and in this i would more say "exective branch's rights" over "federal government's rights", but i admit my initial simply referred to "the feds".

the long-term question of any justice is what they believe is best for the country. but the short-term questions (with their own long-term consequences) before the current court and nominees is what they believe is appropriate use of executive branch power and how it rates against the principles that ideological conservatives say they stand for.

This is, in my opinion, Roberts's first test of whether or not he will be a check on executive branch abuse of power, and he's failed that test. He sided with the president's rights having more weight than the states and the democratic principles embedded in the phrase "states rights" (I expected as much from Scalia and Thomas). When the REAL abuses, like the wiretapping case filed by the ACLU, comes before this court, I am now pretty confident exactly where he will decide.