solved Answer Initial Discussion question 250 words. Respond to 3 classmates

Answer Initial Discussion question 250 words. Respond to 3 classmates 250 Words each Initial Question: When reading Article I of the Constitution you learned or reviewed, about Congressional authority with regard to the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare (Spending) Clause, taxing authority, treaty power, War Powers, Article III Courts and the Necessary and Proper Clause.We could spend many weeks on just Article I, but we focused your attention on the Commerce Clause and Gonzales v Oregon.For you initial discussion post discuss:1) What was the ruling in the case and how did the Commerce Clause impact the case?2) Do you agree with the court’s ruling? Why or why not?3) Does this ruling close the door to federal regulation of of physician suicide? Should we have such regulation?Classmate 1 Rocquieh: Professor and Class,This week we had the privilege of looking into Congressional authority:What was the ruling in the case and how did the Commerce Clause impact the case?In the case Gonzales v Oregon, the attorney general believed that under the Controlled Substances Act it gave them authorization to ban the use of controlled substances for physician assisted suicide. The Court held that Congress intended the CSA to prevent doctors only from being illicit drug dealers, not to define general standards of state medical practice[1]. The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution empowers Congress to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution’ its authority to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States. The Commerce Clause impacted this case because unlike in Raich the medicinal drugs are not being grown and have the chance of being considered intrastate commerce. However, they have most likely been intrastate commerce since they are produced in a pharmaceutical plant and travel to the facility for distribution. It is all a bit confusing.Do you agree with the court’s ruling? Why or why not?As for the ruling in my opinion Justice Thomas said it best in his dissent. The majority in Gonzales v. Raich employed unambiguous language, concluding that the “manner” in which controlled substances can be utilized “for medicinal purposes” is one of the “core activities regulated by the CSA And, it described the CSA as “creating a comprehensive framework for regulating the production, distribution, and possession of … ‘controlled substances,’ including those substances that ‘have a useful and legitimate medical purpose,’ in order to foster the beneficial use of those medications and to prevent their misuse[2]. These doctors like the ones in California are using drugs for medicinal purposes to help their patient whether it is the same reasons is invalid. I believe the Court used judicial activism instead of restraint in this case. Does this ruling close the door to federal regulation of of physician suicide? Should we have such regulation?I do not believe this ruling is going to close the door to federal regulation of physician assisted suicide because as laws are changing across the country in relations to drugs such as marijuana, that will come with new rules and regulations and as we talked about in week 1 judicial activism is very present in how laws are interpreted. I believe there should be a limit to how much regulation goes into medical regulations. I know if I had a family member or even myself in a position where medicinal drugs were the only saving grace, I would not want the Court to decide that its not allowed if my doctor who is the medical professional says that is what is best.-Locke[1] Gonzales v. Oregon, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2005/04-623 (last visited May 10, 2021).[2] Id.CClassmate 2 Adam: Greetings Classmates and welcome to my week 2 forum posting. This week we are covering another interesting case, Gonzales vs Oregon and the involvement of the Commerce Clause. There is a lot of background information here to cover before we dive head first into the questions, so lets get into it.First to give you a little background information, the Gonzales vs Oregon was essentially a challenge to a 1994 ruling where the Oregon electorate voted to legalize physician-assisted suicide under certain circumstances. The Oregon Death With Dignity Act (ODWDA) permits licensed physicians to dispense and prescribe a lethal dose of drugs to patients with incurable and irreversible diseases calculated to result in death within six months under the exercise of reasonable medical judgment. Following enactment of the ODWDA, several members of Congress advocated DEA prosecution of physicians who engaged in assisted suicide practice, arguing that even if permitted under state law, such conduct violated the Controlled Substance Act (CSA).The challenge to this in 2006 came in the form of Gonzales vs Oregon in which the Court found that the Attorney General not only lacked legal authority to regulate medical practice but concluded that, if anything, the CSA denied him the very power he claimed.Now to move on a bit, how did the Commerce Clause effect this case? Well, The Commerce Clause technically refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the states, and the Native American Tribal lands”.This case essentially sheds light on how the Supreme Court approaches controversies involving the exercise of power by federal agencies operating under the Commerce Clause powers. Despite the wide range of Congressional power, the Commerce Clause provides, the Court heavily scrutinizes the legal basis federal agencies try to claim using the literal claims to act. In Oregon v. Gonzales, the Court found that the Attorney General not only lacked legal authority to regulate medical practice but concluded that the CSA actually denied him power he claimedI do at the end of the day agree with the courts ruling on the case because the ruling in the opposite direction would have hit a lot of doctors with negative impacts when their literal state law allowed what they were doing. I am always in support at handling at the lowest level first, and if the state voted in support, then treat that state independently and allow the item they passed by public majority.It was essentially stated in case notes that the doctor patient relationship was determined by the lower courts to be an item that was perhaps just beyond the reach of congressional power under the Commerce Clause. In the courts view, they decided that they should not presume that federal law was intended to reach into such relationships unless that intent was clearly stated in the applicable legislation, which it was not.If my understanding is correct, this does not close the door to federal regulation of assisted suicide because Congress can still make up more specific federal law to specifically address this issue.Thank you for reading,Adam T.Classmate 3 Sherron: Good morning, In Gonzales v. Oregon, the Supreme Court addressed whether the Controlled Substance Act allowed the Attorney General to prohibit the prescription of regulated drugs for physician-assisted suicide in the face of a state law permitting such a prescription. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was enacted in 1970 to create a comprehensive uniform national scheme for regulating the manufacture, distribution, and dispensation of various chemicals and substances[1]. The CSA creates five schedules of controlled substances to allow each to be regulated at a different level. Initially, Congress prescribed a number of specific substances are included within the scheduling system, and delegated to the Attorney General the power, via rulemaking authority, to add substances to a schedule, transfer substances between schedules, and remove substances from a schedule[2].In 1994, the State of Oregon legalized assisted suicide when voters, through a ballot measure, approved the Oregon Death with Dignity Act (ODWDA)[3]. ODWDA exempts from civil or criminal liability physicians who dispense or prescribe a lethal dose of drugs to terminally ill patients under specific safeguards[4]. The drugs used by physicians under ODWDA, while not specified in the Act itself, are regulated under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which restricts the availability of certain drugs for medically accepted uses only[5].In Gonzales v. Oregon, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Attorney General’s Interpretive Rule was invalid because it was outside of the scope of his authority delegated by Congress. This ruling shed light on how broad the Commerce Clause is about the Constitutional power of Congress. In this case, physician-assisted suicide in Oregon did not involve the cultivation or trade of a controlled substance. The Court concluded this activity was non-economic in nature and therefore outside the reach of Congress’s Commerce Clause authority.In my opinion, the Courts handled this case properly. Congress clearly did not pass the CSA to stop physician-assisted suicide; rather, Congress passed the CSA to address the growing illicit drug problem in the United States. Thus, under this reading, the Attorney General’s actions were not permissible because he stepped outside the bounds of his authority by issuing a ruling that used the CSA to serve a function other than that for which Congress intended the legislation, an approach that finds written support in the decision. The ruling does not close the door to federal regulation of physician-assisted suicide. I believe this case opened the doors to further laws or regulations that will override the state’s laws, like the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, to prevent assisted suicide. Oregon put in many safeguards to ensure that assisted suicide was the last option. We should have a form of regulation to ensure that assisted suicide is not being abused or used as a quick fix instead of attempting palliative care. [1] Scott Gast, Who Defines “Legitimate Medical Practice?” Lessons Learned From the Controlled Substances Act, Physician-Assisted Suicide, & Oregon v. Ashcroft, Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law (2002)[2] Gonzales v. Oregon, 126 S. Ct. 904, 911 (2006).[3] Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act (ORS 127.800-897)[4] Gonzales v. Oregon, 126 S. Ct. 904, 911 (2006).[5] Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act (ORS 127.800-897)