Who Has The Constitutional Right To Regulate Death

The Supreme Court is looking at whether the federal government has the authority to regulate pharmaceuticals in the assisted suicide law of Oregon. It is clearly a no-brainer that the federal government does have the right to regulate commerce. The question seems to be does the commerce clause give the federal government the right to regulate the use of the product traded. A similar case, The Gonzales v. Raich case that was just decided in June. It was not as clear cut, with the deciding Justices ruling that it fell under the commerce clause of the Constitution. But if they rule against the federal government in this case, it will allow the states to reattempt to thwart federal interference with distributing marijuana as medicine. The commerce clause is located in Article 1 Section 8 and I cite it here.

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

But lets assume the Justices ignore all other implications of this case, which I have chosen not to mention, and instead choose to deal with the original question which is does the federal government’s right to regulate interstate commerce give them the right to tell others how the product can be used. First off this is clearly a right to property issue. As such it is clearly it is obvious the federal government has directly been given the right to regulate how or if items are transferred or sold between states and has not directly been given the right to regulate right to property such as the control or use of the product. Never the less since the federal government can choose whether to or not to allow an a product to enter a state they can in all practical purposes determine the conditions under which it enters that state by preventing its transport unless it is agreed to sell or use it as prescribed. Thus they can also legislate appropriate penalties for if the conditions of the agreement are violated. The state can refuse to allow the trade or transport of the product into or within their borders if they object to the conditions which the federal government placed on it. The state can also place additional restriction upon the sale and use of the product.

One other question that can be addressed it the federal government responsibility for the general welfare of its citizens vs. the states. In this case there are two conflicting hypothesis about the way a group of products can be used to benefit the general welfare of the people of a state. Though in most cases it is the states right to determine the best way to promote the general welfare, this is an exception as the indirect application of the commerce clause allows the federal government in the form of Congress superior jurisdiction in regulating the purposes products can be transported or sold over state borders.