Gonzales v oregon

Moreover, the fact that Congress itself initially put certain drugs on schedule I-subject to rescheduling based on the judgments of federal, not state, officials-is a particularly strong indication that the Congress that enacted the CSA believed medical judgments could and should be made on the national level.

It also points to the teachings of Hippocrates, the positions of prominent medical organizations, the Federal Government, and the judgment of the 49 States that have not legalized physician-assisted suicide as further support for the proposition that the practice is not legitimate medicine.

Gonzales v. Oregon

At most, there is a concern that the federal law frustrates the purposes of Oregon's voter initiative. It is a well-established principle of statutory construction that, "in the absence of a plain indication to the contrary.

The Attorney General's interpretation of the phrases "legitimate medical purpose" and "professional treatment" to exclude physician-assisted suicide is supported by historical tradition and the near-unanimity of Gonzales v oregon and federal authority Even if the provisions of the CSA were not themselves clear, deference is owed to the Attorney General's construction of the Act and the implementing regulation describing what constitutes a valid prescription for purposes of federal law.

The statute gives attending physicians a central role, requiring them to provide prognoses and prescriptions, give information about palliative alternatives and counseling, and ensure patients are competent and acting voluntarily.

In fact, in a footnote, the court of appeals recognized that it's holding also precludes the Secretary from making a determination whether physician-assisted suicide is a "legitimate medical practice" under the CSA. Stone has argued that the religion of Supreme Court judges played an important role in the decision, given that the five judges in the majority were Catholic.

The Lochner-era authority that the court of appeals cited for the proposition that certain categories of activity are presumptively beyond the authority of the federal government has long ago been rejected by this Court as both unworkable and unfounded, and there is no basis for resurrecting it now.

With the exception of the decision below, the courts of appeals have followed Moore and applied a national standard for professional practice under the CSA. That was the state's own business to control, the Court said. Named the 9 fastest growing education company in the United States.

When the CSA was enacted inCongress made an initial assignment of controlled substances to the schedules it believed appropriate. It would have taken away the states' rights in some important areas. Rather, they are longstanding expressions of the States' commitment to the protection and preservation of all human life.

See City of Edmonds v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Gonzales v. Oregon - Brief (Merits)

The court of appeals' conclusion that federal regulation of the distribution of controlled substances "alter[s] the usual constitutional balance between the States and the Federal Government" in a manner that implicate's Gregory's "unmistakably clear" statement rule, Pet.

Dronabinol is an isomer of tetrahydrocannabinols THCwhich is the principal psychoactive substance in marijuana. Here, on the other hand, the underlying regulation does little more than restate the terms of the statute itself.

Orrin Hatch and Rep. It is clear that the CSA was not intended to regulate the practice of medicine generally, which is a power left to the States.

In Auer, the underlying regulations gave specificity to a statutory scheme the Secretary was charged with enforcing and reflected the considerable experience and expertise the Department of Labor had acquired over time with respect to the complexities of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Controlled Substances Act does not give the Attorney General power to regulate the medical profession in general. II drug is "misbranded" if "it is dangerous to health when used in the dosage or manner, or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling thereof".

B Just as the Interpretive Rule receives no deference under Auer, neither does it receive deference under Chevron.

Violation is a criminal offense, and often a felony, under 21 U. The Attorney General's conclusion is consistent with the laws of 49 States, other laws and policies of the federal government, and leading associations of the medical profession.

But Gregory applies only to federal laws that have an impact upon essential aspects of State sovereignty, such as the tenure of judges and location of a State's Capital. For example, under 21 U. For example, the legislative findings that accompany the CSA reflect that Congress associated "legitimate medical purpose" with "maintain[ing] the health and general welfare of the American people.

A prescription, the Government argues, necessarily implies that the substance is being made available to a patient for a legitimate medical purpose.Gonzales v. Oregon, No 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.

SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, GONZALES V. OREGON SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. palmolive2day.com et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit.

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA or Act), which was enacted in with the main objectives of combating drug abuse and controlling legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances, criminalizes, inter alia, the unauthorized distribution and dispensation of substances classified in any of its five palmolive2day.com Attorney General may add, remove, or reschedule substances only.

Case opinion for US Supreme Court GONZALES v. OREGON []. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw. Oregon sued Ashcroft in federal district court. That court and, later the Ninth Circuit, held Ashcroft''s directive illegal.

The courts held that the CSA did not authorize the attorney general to regulate physician-assisted suicide, which was the sort of medical matter historically entrusted to the states. no. 04— alberto r.

Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006)

gonzales, attorney general, et al., petitioners v. oregon et al. on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit.

Gonzales v oregon
Rated 4/5 based on 76 review