Quote:
|
Originally Posted by j8ear
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.
|
Nice, argument and more concise than mine above.
I truly don't see how anyone can argue it is the burden of the people to show where their rights are protected and not the Fed's burden to prove that right is theirs to take away.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by j8ear
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
|
In all the above mentioned examples, you used Bear, dangerous precedents are being set, I have to agree.
I truly believe the Fed would rather treat us all like idiots and dictate what we can or cannot do. But they do so not to control but to keep order.
Whereas, I am a firm believer in the people's voice and that the people know their communities and will keep order much better by having their voices heard.
If in Oregon this law gets abused (which I don't see happening), I am sure the people are smart enough to go and eventually vote against it.
Overall Bear, I think we have the same opinion and mindset over all this......