.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Expressions of Liberty

A commentary on the governmental respect for natural human rights as expressed by the founders of the United States and how it effects us today. I also show how the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution and other related documents are not dead documents in America today, but merely ignored and misused.

Name:
Location: Champaign, Illinois, United States

I am a classical liberal which is considered a type of conservative in these modern days. I am pro-right to life, pro-right to liberty, pro-parental rights, pro-right to property and a number of other natural human rights.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

The Supreme Court Hand Down An Anarchist Ruling On Murder Of The Sick

The following excerpts are from the Associated Press article "Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law" by Gina Holland or from the Reuters article "Canibal draws unusual distinction" by Bemhard Winkler.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked the Bush administration's attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die, protecting Oregon's one-of-a-kind assisted-suicide law. It was the first loss for Chief Justice John Roberts, who joined the court's most conservative members Clarence Thomas — in a long but restrained dissent.


I mentioned this case earlier in my bogs and showed how the Administration had the right to forbid the use of medicines in a non prescribed manner as part of their right to regulate trade state to state. The question now is will Congress step up and forbid the medicine misused to murder patients, like they forbid illegal drugs. This case sets a precedent where drugs such as cocaine and marijuana may be legalized over the federal governments objection.

I want you to notice that the six deciding judges are the same anarchist who have decided against the democratic elected governments of the United States on other cases.

"Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority — himself, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.


I call them anarchist because they obviously believe in the anarchist morality that each person has total control to his/her own body and possessions even to inflicting harm on it. Thus the determining factor becomes whether an individual consented to an action such as murder or not. A comparison case to this excerpt from a current infamous murder cannibalism case in Germany.

Meiwes's legal team has argued the defendant merely acceded to Brandes's wishes and that his crime was only "killing on request," a form of illegal euthanasia that carries a maximum five-year sentence.

Prosecutors, hoping to secure a murder conviction, need to show that Meiwes killed Brandes not only because the latter had wanted to be eaten, but also due to a base desire of his own.


The six anarchist, none of who I would call moderate as the media insists on doing, have ruled in a block on other cases of note. These cases have upheld Roe v. Wade and ruled that sodomy was covered under the Constitution. All three cases are obviously decided by anarchist morality instead of the law since William Blackstone states it is the right and duty of the government to forbid suicide and treat those guilty of it by destroying their reputation and striking their name from any honor roll. He also states children yet in their mother’s womb have the right to life and that homosexuality is an deplorable crime. William Blackstone’s Commentaries were used to determine the original intent of the Constitution in Supreme Court cases even the case of Marbury v. Madison where the Supreme Court decided they had the right to review the other two branches of government.

2 Comments:

Blogger highboy said...

I agree totally with you. I too have posted about this on my own site. Check it out. http://christmatters.blogspot.com/

9:12 AM  
Blogger William said...

Anarchist Supreme court?

Ignoring the whole being-a-branch-of-government thing, I suppose the Anarchist Morality thing is correct.

But then again, I'm something of an excusist for America. I'd love to believe that they were, as you say, following the heart of the Constitution... but something tells me most of them were voting according to their personal notions of political identity. (i.e. Liberal or Conservative rather than actually pro-Freedom.)

Good for Clarence Thomas, though, for taking an opposing stand so as to gain public attention and point out that though Assisted Suicide follows the pro-freedom (if still pragmatic) views of most Americans, the court still failed to uphold these freedoms in its last ruling against Oregon on painkillers. As his protest vote points out, the Court has increasingly followed the innane opinions of the Democrats or the Republicans rather than the principles of individual freedom so core to America. So maybe the court still has a long way to go before it starts making decisions on moral principle, but Thomas' dissent gives hope that they'll eventually see the Anarchist light.

11:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home