BEYOND D.C.'S REACH

A majority of Oregon voters decided that terminally ill people ought
to have the option to end their lives painlessly via
physician-assisted suicide.

In 2001, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft decided to override the
wishes of the people of Oregon by using the federal Controlled
Substances Act to punish physicians who participate in Oregon's Death
With Dignity Act.

Physicians were caught in a state-federal legal squeeze.

But this week, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 6-3 ruling, sided with
Oregon. The majority ruled that Ashcroft's action was "beyond his
expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes" of the
controlled substances law.

The ruling, albeit a narrow one, is a victory for states' rights and
an important check on the power of the federal executive branch. But
it is not the end of the national debate over assisted suicide.

The majority opinion ruled that when Congress approved the Controlled
Substances Act, it did "not have this far-reaching intent to alter the
federal-state balance."

The implication being that Congress, if it wishes, might take specific
action to prohibit states from carrying out assisted suicides.

And that's a proper forum for this critical debate. Members of
Congress make their decisions in Washington, but they have to answer
to voters back home.

What the high court said in the Oregon case is that the executive
branch cannot arbitrarily apply a convenient federal law to thwart
state initiatives.

Whether Congress can step in with a specific prohibition state
sanctioned assisted suicide is left for another court to decide, if
and when Congress makes that determination.