PRPA letter

[Conkle, Daniel O.]

Bryan Wildenthal  writes in part as follows:  "'Federalist' and
state-autonomy-minded conservatives like Rep. Hyde (the sponsor, I believe,
of PRPA) should be sympathetic to such arguments, and should recognize that
their normative views on assisted suicide should not run roughshod over
Congress's proper legislative role."

Professor Wildenthal and the other participants in this discussion have
principled views about constitutional doctrine and about the more general
policy of federalism, and I like to think that I do also.  But I'm almost
always disappointed when I looked for principled federalism in the world of
politics or public commentary.  Unfortunately, this seems to be true of
political "liberals" no less than political "conservatives."  Witness, for
example, the N.Y. Times' recent discovery of federalism in the context of
PRPA, and, as a thought experiment, imagine the Times' response to a
congressional statute designed to protect abortion rights, e.g., the Freedom
of Choice Act that was proposed a few years back:

"The bill [PRPA] is an inappropriate attempt to usurp the power of states to
address
the profound question of the right to die. Oregon voters have made the
decision
to allow physician-assisted suicide as a reflection of their needs and
values.
Oregon's Death With Dignity law allows a terminally ill patient to receive a
lethal dose of drugs only if judged by two physicians to be of sound mind
and to
have less than six months to live. Other states may choose not to legalize
assisted suicide.  But Oregon voters should be allowed to act on this
sensitive
medical issue without Congressional interference." - N.Y. Times Editorial,
9/19/00

Dan Conkle
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Daniel O. Conkle
Professor of Law
Indiana University School of Law
Bloomington, Indiana  47405
(812) 855-4331
fax (812) 855-0555
mailto:conkle at indiana.edu
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *