|
Disclaimer: I am an Oregon native and this may color my opinion on this case to some degree, I admit.
I am personally wholeheartedly against the Department of Justice attempt to undermine the Death With Dignity Act. It is important to remember several important factors going into this:
1 - Oregonian citizens have passed the Act twice at the polls by significant margin.
2 - DWDA has passed court muster at the State, Federal, and Supreme Court levels.
3 - The right to legislate this matter lies Constitutionally with the states.
4 - The current case does not question Oregon's right to allow assisted suicide.
There is no questioning that this current attack is an attempt at an end run around a law that has already withstood numerous attacks and been upheld at every turn. There is also no questioning that this is a political move to satisfy supporters of the Administration, most of whom do not live in Oregon. However, while these factors may show the motive of those bringing the case, they do not invalidate the case...that instead must be done when we look at its legal merits.
This is where it falls down but also where the implications are much wider than this case. DoJ contends that Federal law allows the Federal Gov't to regulate the use of drugs and determine what does or does not constitute appropriate use. This has histroically been the status quo, authorizing the Federal involvement in the war on drugs and against the illegal trade of pharmaceuticals, as well as ensuring drug safety through consistant legislation of laws regarding FDA standards for drug testing and production. Not a bad thing, generally speaking. But then again, these are overwhelmingly matters of interstate commerce and therefore legitimate areas for Federal involvement.
The letter of Federal law may indeed authorize the Government to intervene in Oregon's case. If this is the matter, and I suspect the argument that it is is strong, then it may indeed mean current Federal drug laws are unconstitutional unless they include provisions to prevent these laws from being used to contravene those areas of authority expressly reserved for the states by the Constitution. Such a finding would open a can of worms indeed.
There is a complicating factor however, and that is that is the more widely spread medical marijuana cases, in which, IIRC, the Supreme Court has backed what I think is an unconstitutional level of federal involvement in the states' rights to determine the use of the substance. However, this is different than Oregon's case in that marijuana involves attempts to give a legal use to an otherwise illegal substance, in which all commerce was banned, while Oregon's case involves the use of legal pharmaceuticals.
I find it particularly distressing that such virulent attack on Oregon's law is coming from an Administration that claims to be Conservative, or have Conservatives abandoned States Rights as a platform since obtaining control of the Federal Government?
Fun, but not entirely relevant, facts:
- About 1 in 5 Oregonians is non-religious, the highest rate of all 50 states.
- This will be one of Roberts' first major cases, so we'll probably hear a lot about his questions, vote, and opinion on this one.
Josh
|