On November 6th, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft attempted to stop physician assisted suicide in Oregon, by invoking Federal drug laws. On November 20th, U.S. District Judge Robert Jones extended his November 8th temporary restraining order, and gave the state and the Justice Department up to five months to prepare their arguments.

The judge stressed that his order "nullifies giving any legal effect" to Ashcroft's directive. That is, doctors should not fear legal repercussions if they follow the Oregon law. It should be noted that Oregon's so-called Death with Dignity Law was approved by voters in 1994, survived legal challenges, and was re-approved in a 1997 referendum by a wide margin.

For many, it is quite refreshing to see the Feds come down on the side of morality for a change, after going quite the other direction for nearly 40 years. Recent decades have seen the banishment of prayer in schools, promotion of extraordinary rights for the criminal, legalization of abortion on demand, creation of untold and heretofore unknown victim classes, establishment of racial/ethnic quotas, and virtually unrestricted immigration.

For others, the entrance of the Federal leviathan into matters not of their concern is a frightening specter. What's more, we're in the midst of a war on terrorism, and attacking a popular state law, that has "benefitted" perhaps 70 people since its inception, would not seem to be the best use of time and resources.

Both sides have their points, but for me, resolving this matter is straightforward.

Assisted suicide is morally repugnant, and flies in the face of the whole notion of the healing arts, but then, so does abortion. It is difficult to argue, under the notion of promoting the general welfare, that the Federal government can attack one while supporting the other. Even a cursory reading of U.S. history will demonstrate that it clearly depends on who is in power, as to what kind of moral agenda is promoted.

Suffice to say that these issues are simply not the purview of the Federal government, and under the 10th amendment, belong to the states, if they belong to the government at all.

We could look to the Framers for some guidance, bearing in mind that one of the supreme ironies of the United States is that James Madison's Constitution is supposedly the defining document behind a country that has become far more like Alexander Hamilton's vision in his Federalist papers. Madison would be shocked to see today's massive Federal government, and I doubt that even Hamilton would be terribly pleased. One can only conclude that assisted suicide and abortion would be so beyond the pale as to have no Federal legal standing in their minds.

But, times change. Fully 90 percent of what the Feds do these days has no Constitutional basis whatsoever, and frankly, this does not seem to bother most people. As such, formerly taboo subjects enter the political arena, and snake oil is for sale everywhere.

Terminally ill patients have been given "accidental" overdoses of morphine for years, abortion has occurred since prehistoric times, and drugs of abuse, pedophilia, pederasty, prostitution, and porno will flourish regardless of the law. Even if one could establish a moralistic government, there would be far more problems created by the factions caused--as Madison described--than solved in the moral Utopia.

There is little hope of returning to the system intended by Madison, but we can and should resist further expansion of the Federal monster, even if certain ideas appeal to our sense of morality. Let us improve morally as individuals, and the government will follow suit, for the government reflects only ourselves.

Send Mike e-mail