We're about to find out just how much of a "strict constructionist" John Roberts really is.
Already being argued before the Court is a challenge to Oregon's law permitting doctors to assist the sick in dying. Oregon is currently the only state with such a law, and the Bush administration has vigorously pursued that law in an attempt to have it overturned. Attorney General Ashcroft decided in 2001 that such was "an improper use of medication" and violates federal drug laws (not to mention that the Constitution does not give the federal government the right to trump state laws except in specific cases). But I challenge anyone to find anywhere in the constitution the idea the the federal government has the right to regulate suicide.
Unfortunately, Ashcroft's pursuit of doctors who assist in suicide, particularly Bush's support of his doing so, is a case of a person in power allowing his religious beliefs to trump his sworn duty to defend the constitution. Now, many people do indeed believe that our rights and morals ultimately come from God (although the Greeks, long ago, proved that this cannot be the case). But the president took an oath to defend the constitution, not his religion, and he's being derelict in that duty (once again), as is any member of the Court who rules against Oregon's law.
In fact, challenges to Oregon's law are being argued from almost every perspective except the constitution itself, demonstrating how far removed the SCOTUS has become from its purported position of determining the constitutionality of laws. What it's really doing is ruling whether it likes the law or not, the constitution (especially the 10th amendment) be hanged.
Now, folks, please notice that I am not arguing in favor of assisted suicide. What I am arguing in favor of is each state's right to excercise its 10th-amendment franchise. Most states, in fact, do not permit assisted suicide. One does. And if you believe in the constitution as written, it has every right to do so.
(Hat tip to Ralph Bristol.)















