(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]

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.