Your recollection is faulty. For example, I actually said that federal action with regard to African- Americans was warranted, and that I supported the mid- 60s civil rights legislation, and the principle of public accommodations. In fact, that is one of the classic instances of problem being so egregious, and having such a bearing on the nation, that federal intervention is mandated. I also support the Brown decision, and Eisenhower's intervention to enforce it in Little Rock. Also, I support the Supreme Court in banning mandatory school prayer as part of morning exercises, and I support federal subsidy for school districts especially impacted by immigration, as in LA and New York. It is sad, to me, that you have misunderstood me to such an extent after all of this time. I have merely said that the default position is against federalization of an issue, and that there should be some caution about pressing issues that are bound to create a backlash.
As for the specific issue, I am not defending his action, I am declining to condemn it. I respect people acting out of conscience, to the point that I would not always condemn civil disobedience. It is a large step to legalize active euthanasia, and it has national implications. I do not think one has to be religious to be dubious about assisted suicide, particularly when it directly violates the ethical norms of the medical profession. If Ashcroft had a legal argument to assert against Oregon, I am not sure that he should not have done so. I am certainly not scandalized....... |
