Why would a conservative support a "right to die" law?
Here's why: because each state has the right to make its own laws. As James Madison put it: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." That includes, for example any law which does not violate the Constitution directly. So, if Oregon wants to legalize theft, rape, and murder, it may. The alleged harm that would come of this is no greater than the harm that would come of allowing a company to become a monopoly apart from government protection. Quite simply: no one would live in Oregon, just as no one would patronize a company offering inferior products at inflated prices.
"Yes, but, well, people will still live in Oregon if they have a right-do-die law!" Quite true, my able-minded reader. Some people do, in fact, want to die. They will no doubt flock to Oregon and avail themselves of this service being offered. While it is sad and tragic that people commit suicide, much as it is sad that people fornicate. Adults are allowed to do that in many, many states. In fact I defy you to show me one state or locality inside the U.S. that actively prosecutes fornication cases. So we have indeed reached the point where in the U.S. not every government enforces God's laws, right on down the line.
Is it a bad thing to have bad state laws? Surprisingly, there are good reasons to doubt that it is a bad thing for there to be states with very bad laws (or conversely, that lack very good laws). "How can this be?" You well might ask. The answer is shocking, but true. If Oregon were allowed to pass all the laws that its people want to pass, and if Kansas passed all the laws that its people want to pass, and so forth for Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Washington, Nevada, Mississippi, and all the other states, you'd find that there would be at least one state that suits you quite a bit better than the one you live in now. Even to the extent that you would move there. People who hold views nearly diametrically opposite yours would have their own state too. Like Oregon. And they can move there and commit gay-porn-drug-high tax-suicide, and live it up. Or die it up. Or whatever.
Okay, yeah, I know that my federalist utopia is crazy, considering that the court, though 7-2 Republican, is 6-3 nutjob anti-federalist imperialist. And the suicide rights, gay rights, drug rights, porn rights rulings have nothing to do with states' rights, and everything to do with suicide, homosexuality, drugs, and porn being "in vogue" with the elites who rule us from the supreme court. Still, I think it would work.
SRS
"Yes, but, well, people will still live in Oregon if they have a right-do-die law!" Quite true, my able-minded reader. Some people do, in fact, want to die. They will no doubt flock to Oregon and avail themselves of this service being offered. While it is sad and tragic that people commit suicide, much as it is sad that people fornicate. Adults are allowed to do that in many, many states. In fact I defy you to show me one state or locality inside the U.S. that actively prosecutes fornication cases. So we have indeed reached the point where in the U.S. not every government enforces God's laws, right on down the line.
Is it a bad thing to have bad state laws? Surprisingly, there are good reasons to doubt that it is a bad thing for there to be states with very bad laws (or conversely, that lack very good laws). "How can this be?" You well might ask. The answer is shocking, but true. If Oregon were allowed to pass all the laws that its people want to pass, and if Kansas passed all the laws that its people want to pass, and so forth for Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Washington, Nevada, Mississippi, and all the other states, you'd find that there would be at least one state that suits you quite a bit better than the one you live in now. Even to the extent that you would move there. People who hold views nearly diametrically opposite yours would have their own state too. Like Oregon. And they can move there and commit gay-porn-drug-high tax-suicide, and live it up. Or die it up. Or whatever.
Okay, yeah, I know that my federalist utopia is crazy, considering that the court, though 7-2 Republican, is 6-3 nutjob anti-federalist imperialist. And the suicide rights, gay rights, drug rights, porn rights rulings have nothing to do with states' rights, and everything to do with suicide, homosexuality, drugs, and porn being "in vogue" with the elites who rule us from the supreme court. Still, I think it would work.
SRS
posted by weblogbob83 at 4:26 AM
2 Comments:
Okay, yeah, I know that my federalist utopia is crazy, considering that the court, though 7-2 Republican, is 6-3 nutjob anti-federalist imperialist. And the suicide rights, gay rights, drug rights, porn rights rulings have nothing to do with states' rights, and everything to do with suicide, homosexuality, drugs, and porn being "in vogue" with the elites who rule us from the supreme court. Still, I think it would work.
You touch on the word utopia, which I think is important. You have the black and white mentality of someone who hasn't had enough life experience to polish down some rough edges in your logic. I am the same way from the left.
Your point about drugs, homosexuality, suicide, and porn being "in vogue" is a good example. It's like me saying killing innocent black men and torturing gays is in vogue on the right. It's smearing a nuanced point by claiming it's advocated for.
Other than those who do drugs, no one spends much time arguing for more illegal drug access. Though the legality of alcohol, which does nothing for you, is an interesting side story.
Right-to-die cases are less about dying and more about suffering. These are people that will die eventually and are living in immense pain, sometimes for years, against their will. These are not people that need to buck up and put on a happy face, these are people that are at the very limits of their life, and are only around because a hospital is artificially keeping them alive. (or, "playing god") Allowing them to finally die may technically be suicide, but it's dishonest to not factor their terminal-except-for-their-medical-equipment status.
Some people feel homosexuality is a choice. I don't know why anyone would go out of their way to be ridiculed, beaten up, and marginalized in society, but that's the current working theory on the right. I think y'all are wrong, but my main point today is that it's not in vogue. And it won't be while gays are persecuted.
Finally, porn. Where in our constitution is it illegal to read porn? As long as humans have had urges, there has been porn. Until we add a "lust" amendment, it will be legal, and any attempts to restrict it will be based not on the sound constitutional law you preach, but on personal opinions that it's wrong.
Go ahead, try making an anti-porn amendment. I dare you ;)
Hey Jon, do you think I should write a book called "How to win friends and influence people?" (I'm smiling as I type that.)
On to business: the end of your comment makes me think you missed my point entirely. Did you not notice the part where I said I *support* the ruling in favor of Oregon's law? Frankly, I'm surprised that Thomas dissented, though a little less surprised about Scalia and, at this point, nothing would surprise me about Roberts. But I support Oregon's right to have any law that doesn't expressly violate the constitution. Some conservatives say the protection of life in this case can be found in the constitution, but I think finding it is an awful lot like the jurisprudential sleight of hand that brought us Roe.
As for the "in vogue" comment, I was merely making a rhetorical point about how the recent High Court has made no attempt to decide in favor of the constitution, it just happens to be on the same side of a particular case as their pet causes on occasion. As for your simile, it doesn't hold water. Left-wing politicians, pundits, academics, and so forth, embrace illegal drug users, homosexuals, porn hounds, and people who want "physician assistance" in committing suicide. They don't hide it or apologize for it. On the right meanwhile, no one I know would tolerate anyone who killed an innocent black man or tortured gays. And if there was someone on the right who would tolerate something like that, he would have to do it not only away from the public eye, but also without the knowledge of his right-wing friends, too.
Again, let me remind you that the point of my article was that every state should be allowed to have its own laws to a much larger extent than is now the case. That's what true federalism is: several states with their own identities and laws, bound by a constitution that provides for common defense and settlement of disputes of interstate commerce. That's why I support "drugs, homosexuality, suicide, and porn" being up to each state to regulate - not banned nor legalized by unconstitutional "federal" fiat.
If you think the Supreme Court has drifted far to the right, look at which state laws were overturned by the court: abortion bans, sodomy bans, and so forth; whereas the court has upheld an assisted suicide law. The obvious conclusion is not that they respect states' rights to their own laws, but that they simply like assisted suicide laws, and don't like abortion and sodomy bans. Furthermore, they aren't particularly interested in the unambiguous text of the constitution, but supremely (get it?) interested in their own opinions, and possibly the opinions of Manhattan social elites, Hollywood entertainers, or what-have-you.
If you are right about no one spending much time for illegal drug access except those who use, then a lot of public university faculty members need to undergo drug tests immediately. I hope you are wrong about that. Also, what did you mean about alcohol?
I agree with what you say about porn - I think. I agree that it would be totally unconstitutional to ban it from the federal level. (Not that that seems to stop anyone anymore.) But the constitution doesn't have to enumerate it for a state to ban it. James Madison said that the powers of the federal government are few and definite, and the powers of the the states are many and indefinite. That means the states can do anything they want unless the constitution says expressly otherwise, or the federal government says otherwise *without overstepping its own authority* - which it would be if it overturned an anti-porn law.
As for homosexuality being a choice: I take a view that's very controversial for Christians, but is actually very moderate and well-thought out. Follow me closely here - I believe that homosexuals have an innate tendency to favor their own sex. But since people choose to overcome their tendencies and their base desires all the time. A heterosexual man, even if married, will be attracted to a young shapely woman, whether or not she's his wife, but he may choose not to pursue a sexual relationship with her, because he's choosing morality instead of biology. Likewise, a homosexual man (that is, someone with a tendency to favor other men) may choose not to pursue a sexual relationship with other men and instead marry and have children - choosing morality over biology. A homosexual (or anyone else) might protest that doing that means repressing a part of who he is. Repression of violent feelings is often lauded, so why not repression of something that is obviously biologically aberrant?
We are going to talk over one another's heads if we keep up like this in the right-to-die debate. I am referring not to people who need any assistance to live, but to people who "need" assistance to die. No one debates anyone's right to request to be taken off of life support (or at least, I don't think anyone does!) but the most recent case was brought against Oregon's law by the feds because the doctors assisting in the suicides were using drugs to do so. As I've already noted, I believe Oregon has the right to allow this, and as I haven't noted, the war on drugs scares me sometimes and I wish someone would rein in the feds at the DEA and the ATF. But the argument here is about proactive assistance to suicides, not passive suicide (by nontreatment).
SRS
P.S.I don't want to make an anti-porn amendment, but I would like to make an anti-abortion amendment.
Post a Comment
<< Home