Gonzales v. Oregon
July 19, 2005
Gonzales v. Oregon, No 04-623
is a particularly perverse attack on federalism. Although there is no
federal law prohibiting physician-assisted suicide, then-Attorney
General John Ashcroft strained the Controlled Substances Provision to
prohibit it.
One administrative actor strained federal law to enact his policy preference. One man sought to control the country. The
Ninth Circuit properly held that the long arm of Washington could not
extend to Oregon absent clear congressional language. The federal government sought Supreme Court review. The Court granted cert. and will hear oral arguments next Term.
The Cato Institute has thus filed yet another excellent amicus brief. This one supports Oregon and can be downloaded here. Here's a taste:
This case requires the Court to determine the limits of federal power and the extent of state sovereignty in the area of professional medical judgment – an area of professional regulation to which “States lay claim by right of history and expertise.” United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 583 (1995) (Kennedy and O’Connor, JJ., concurring). Here, an unelected regulatory agent of the executive branch of the federal government has attempted to void, through administrative action, not one but two ballot referenda duly conducted by the citizens of a sovereign state who sought to secure for themselves the right to obtain medical advice and assistance at the end of life. The two referenda at issue, enshrined in Oregon’s “Death With Dignity Act,” are part of an intense, morally charged debate as to which there is no national consensus, as is evidenced by the Court’s several opinions in Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). Oregon’s law may be unorthodox, and even unique, but it has twice been endorsed by substantial majorities of Oregon voters.