Assisted suicide...

The United States government does not rightfully or legally have any legitimate claim on your life. It belongs to you, and according to natural law, every individual retains sole decision-making authority to end his own life.

I am rather mystified by the split in the Supreme Court decision that came down recently, most specifically the thought process used by Clarence Thomas.

Now, the shephards on talk radio and the Democrat party will tell you that Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are birds of a feather, but they are not. Scalia is much more of a statist when it comes to many issues. Thomas, on the other hand, believes fiercely in the Federalist concept, and recognizes that the United States of America is a plural noun.

In his dissent of the Oregon physician assisted suicide case, Thomas lambasted his colleagues who voted previously to use the Controlled Substances Act to overrule the California law which had made medical marijuana legal in certain circumstances, yet somehow in this case found a way not to apply the same doctrine to doctors who prescribe and administer lethal doses of otherwise legal narcotics.

Using their own language from the prior decision, Thomas asks how the same justice can say that using medical marijuana violates the "legitimate medical usage" requirement of the CSA while being prescribed lethal doses of narcotics does not.

Of course, I don't think that the federal government has any role to play in determing what constitutes "legitimate medical usage" of a drug, nor does it have a responsibility to prevent individuals from making decisions which may be detrimental to their health. Are we to allow the government the power to force a cancer patient to undergo chemotherapy? How about allowing the government to prevent a person with no hope of recovery the ability to obtain chemotherapy treatment if he so desires it?

I'm not surprised at all that Roberts and Scalia (statists, both) voted to expand the scope of federal legislation while ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments, but Thomas' opinion seems to make no sense. If he were true to the principles of federalism as he claimed in the medical marijuana case, and again in this dissent, wouldn't have have voted in the affirmative, thereby recognizing the power of the State of Oregon and its people to determine for themselves a solution to this difficult question?

I believe that America would be much better off if States reasserted their sovereignty. After all, the Constitution is not a pact that grants the federal government all the power that it seeks or desires.

If the People of Alabama want a stone monument displaying the 10 commandments in their State Supreme Court building, that is their right.
If the People of California wish to allow its residents access to medical marijuana, that is their right.
If the People of Oregon wish to allow doctor-assisted suicide, that is their right.
If the People of Massachusetts wish to allow same-sex couples the benefits of legal marriage, that is their right.
If the People of Pennsylvania wish to declare abortion to be murder within their State, that is their right.

Overuse of the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution has needlessly led to an enormous division in this country on social issues. The only ones who win are the politicians who bamboozle the sheep year after year with empty talk about solving these problems, yet never quite getting around to doing it. (See H.R. 4379, a bill that would reign in the federal judiciary as Republicans have told us they want to do in recent campaigns)

If Americans were less focused on religion, guns, and abortion at a national level, perhaps we could begin to seriously address the actual problems which face our Republic, instead of endlessly fighting the culture wars while our politicians continue to rob us blind and get us into illegal wars for no legitimate purpose.