You raise good questions Ramesh. I hope I can provide convincing answers. 1) Historically, state law has defined the contours of legitimate medical practice. Doctors were licensed under state, not federal, law. So, as a practical matter, the precise question you pose would be unlikely to arise insofar as standards for state medical practice were in place long before the Controlled Substances Act, and most (if not all) states embraced an interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath that precluded doctor-assisted suicide. That said, I don’t see a problem with a federal default rule that would apply insofar as state law is ambiguous and would yield to a more definite state law. Again, though, this situation would not arise in the context of assisted suicide as Oregon is the only state in which this is accepted under state law.

2) Congressman should vote against laws they believe are unconstitutional, but must comply with laws that are validly enacted. I think this same general principle applies to the executive. Thus, the executive has a duty to veto unconstitutional legislation, but also to comply with validly adopted laws. The “this legislation violates the constitution but I’ll sign it and let the courts sort it out” position adopted by several recent presidents is an abdication of responsibility. Simply refusing to enforce federal law is potentially corrosive of the rule of law. Moreover, I believe that each branch of the federal governent owes some (though not complete) deference to the other branch’s constitutional determinations. So if Congress enacts a law over a Presidential veto, and the law is upheld by the Supreme Court, the executive should take these determinations under consideration. (By the same token, the courts should reconsider decisions that are directly challenged by legislative and executive determinations.) Finally, it is traditional for the executive to defend all validly adopted federal laws in court. I believe this is based on the idea that the executive must execute validly adopted laws — even those with which the executive disagrees. Rather than refuse to enforce federal law, the proper course is for the executive to encourage a law’s reversal in Congress or the courts.