Gonzales v. Oregon

Paper Summary:

This paper reviews the case of Gonzales v. Oregon in which the question is posed whether the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and its implementing regulations authorize Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to prohibit the distribution of federally controlled substances for the purpose of facilitating an individual's suicide, regardless of state law allowing such distribution.

Outline:
Title of Case
Case Number
Citations
Question
Holding
Facts
Majority Reasoning
Dissenting Opinion
Critique

From the Paper:

"The majority decision seems to be more of a "political rebuke" to the Bush administration's aggressive use of the executive power rather than being based on strictly legal consideration. As pointed out by Justice Thomas in his dissenting opinion, the Court has disregarded its own precedent of "Gonzales v. Raich" in which the Supreme Court ruled by 6-3 that the federal government is entitled to enforce the CSA's ban of the use of marijuana, even though the state of California permits the drug to be possessed legally for medicinal purposes, and the marijuana use in question was for medical use (Smith) Moreover, the majority opinion in "Raich" also cited the Constitution's Supremacy Clause as "unambiguously" providing "that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail." (Quoted by Smith) This principle of the US Constitution was also surprisingly disregarded in "Oregon." The decision in "Gonzales v Oregon" in favor of physician-assisted suicide could also prove to be the start of the slide down the "slippery slope" and gradually extend the scope of physician-assisted suicides beyond just the terminally ill to others such as the disabled. (Grossman and Nicholls) The Court does not seem to have considered the moral dimensions of the issue in its decision."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Avitan, Galit and Nick Wimbush. "liibulletin: Supreme Court Oral Argument Previews." Cornell Law School: Supreme Court Collection. 2006. April 24, 2006. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/04-623.html>
• Biskupic, Joan. "Opinion more or less rebukes power grab." USA TODAY. January 17, 2006. April 25, 2006. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-17-suicide-analysis_x.htm>
• "GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. OREGON et al." Find Law. 2006. April 24, 2006. <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=04-623#dissent2>
• "Gonzales v. Oregon." Duke Law: Supreme Court online. 2006. April 24, 2006. <http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certgrants/2005/gonvore.html>
• "Gonzales v. Oregon." From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 2006. April 25, 2006. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Oregon>

More papers on Gonzales v. Oregon:

• Analytical Essay # 88181 : "Gonzales v. Oregon"
• Case Study # 75250 : "Case Analysis: Gonzales vs. Oregon"
• Argumentative Essay # 149268 : "Marijuana Use in "Gonzales v. Raich"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: