Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
While on the issue of original intent, show me were the right to assisted suicide is constitutionally protected? .... Protected, hell mentioned, insinuated, guarenteed, afforded. I know you are secured in life and liberty, don't reckon death is up there.
|
I am really concerned with this line of conservative reasoning. It seems to be very popular.
I'm going to point you to the ninth ammendment, which says the following:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Ad the tenth ammendment, which says the following:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This means that just because it isn't in the constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The constitution does three things:
1. Ennumerates specific rights retained by the people.
2. Limits the reach of the federal government.
3. What it is silent on is left TO THE STATES OR THE PEOPLE.
So I'm going to answer your question with a challenge:
Show us where in the constitution it gives the federal government the right to regulate assisted suicide, or even prohibits the states from doing so. Should you fail this challenge, and you will, that right is retained by the people or the states EXCLUSIVELY.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
I don't see how it can possibly be interstae commerce. They barely got the medicinal marijuana on that.
|
While I agree with you here Pan, I must direct you to some very disturbing precedent that has completely corrupted the doctrine of interstate commerce.
1. Sen Diane Fienstien is extremely concerned that somehow interstate commerce would not be valid in the enactment of federal regulations prohibitting firearms within a certain distance from schools. Nothing interstate or commercial about it. See some of her qgrandstaning in Robert's confirmation hearing.
2. The federal government has used interstate commerce reasoning to prevent development entirely within a single state, under the guise of protecting a single species (endangered species act) which exists ONLY within a single states borders.
3. The federal government used interstate commerce to rebuff California's medical marijuana laws. This was NON-COMMERCIAL in nature, and obviously conducted exclusively within a single states borders.
This is compelling evidence, that the plain and common sense meaning of these two words, Interstate and Commerce, really means nothing of the sort...since it also includes NONCOMMERCIAL activity, conducted entirely intrastate.
/nice rebuff of mojo btw...
Go figure.
-bear