Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

I haven't kept up with the law on euthanasia and assisted suicide over the years. At the moment it is a Big Subject, because presumptive Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is the author of a book on it. So I'm doing some catch-up research. Part of that is familiarizing myself with Vacco v. Quill, a 1997 decision by the Supreme Court that plays a big part in Gorsuch's book. The decision, and all six opinions, may be found here. Despite the proliferation of opinions, the judgment itself was unanimous -- all opinions aside from C.J. Rehnquist' for the court were concurrences. Here's a brief quote from the Rehnquist opinion. I promise to come back soon and say something judgmental about it. Please regard this post as a mere IOU. Anyway: the quote: "[W]e disagree with respondents' claim that the distinction between refusing lifesaving medical treatment and assisted suicide is 'arbitrary' and 'irrational.' ... Granted, in some case...

The listing of powers granted Congress by the Constitution is clearly intended to have a limiting effect. The framers were saying, "this far and no farther." Or else ... why bother?  If they had wanted any of the powers to serve as a blank check, they could have included only that one.  "Congress will do whatever the heck it thinks best." You only need one blank check, not a long list of them. Thus, it is axiomatic that none of the "enumerated" powers (a traditional though odd expression -- they weren't literally numbered in the text!) is supposed to be universal in its scope. I have always felt rather embarrassed on behalf of the Supreme Court as an institution by its decision to turn the commerce clause into the blank check power. Wheat grown on a farm, baked into bread and consumed on that very farm (and thus of course in the same state) was held in Wickard v. Filburn to be a matter of interstate commerce. You can read the decision here i...