« Always Nice To Know The Efforts Of Our Vietnam Veterans Is Appreciated | Main | New York and Denver Terror Probe, Najibullah Zazi Admits Al Qaeda Ties »
September 19, 2009
CZAR Sunstein: Obama, not courts, should interpret law
Sunstein: Obama, not courts, should interpret law
'Beliefs and commitments' of nation's leader should supersede judges
The interpretation of federal law should be made not by judges but by the beliefs and commitments of the U.S. president and those around him, according to President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.
"There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him," argued Sunstein.
This statement was the central thesis of Sunstein's 2006 Yale Law School paper, "Beyond Marbury: The Executive's Power to Say What the Law Is." The paper, in which he argues the president and his advisers should be the ones to interpret federal laws, was obtained and reviewed by WND.
Sunstein debated the precedent-setting 1803 case, Marbury v. Madison, which determined it is "emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
He lamented multiple recent examples of U.S. presidents interpreting law only to have their interpretations overturned by the Supreme Court.
"Why is the executive not permitted to construe constitutional ambiguities as it sees fit?" asks Sunstein. "The simplest answer is that foxes are not permitted to guard henhouses ... but who is the fox?"
He concludes "the executive should usually be permitted to interpret (law) as it reasonably sees fit."
"The allocation of law-interpreting power to the executive fits admirably well with the twentieth-century shift from common law courts to regulatory administration if the governing statute is ambiguous," he writes.
Sunstein is not shy about expressing his radical beliefs in papers and books, although many of his controversial arguments have received little to no news media attention or public scrutiny.
Earlier this week, WND first reported Sunstein drew up in an academic book a "First Amendment New Deal" – a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves.
WND also reported Sunstein proposed a radical new "bill of rights" in a 2004 book, "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR'S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever," in which he advanced the radical notion that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state.
WND has learned that in April 2005, Sunstein opened up a conference at Yale Law School entitled "The Constitution in 2020," which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year.
Sunstein has been a main participant in the movement, which openly seeks to create a "progressive" consensus as to what the U.S. Constitution should provide for by the year 2020. It also suggests strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.
Just before his appearance at the conference, Sunstein wrote a blog entry in which he explained he "will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party."
In his book, Sunstein laid out what he wants to become the new bill of rights, which he calls the Second Bill of Rights:
Among his mandates are:
* The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
* The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
* The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
* The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
* The right of every family to a decent home;
* The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
* The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
* The right to a good education.
On one page in his book, Sunstein claims he is "not seriously arguing" his bill of rights be "encompassed by anything in the Constitution," but on the next page he states that "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself."
Later in the book, Sunstein argues that "at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America's constitutive commitments."
Wild Thing's comment.......
Picking myself up from the floor from fainting from all of his insanity and so much against our Constitution...whew oh my gosh. To know this man and he IS one that Obama agrees with obviously is in our government in any way is sooooo dangerous.
The Constitution set up three branches, with separation of powers, but Czar Sunstein doesn’t give a hoot about the Constitution and we already know how Obama has stated he loathed in back in 2001.
This guy’s a bloomin’ fruitcake of the first order. He’s rubber room material.
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at September 19, 2009 08:50 AM
Comments
Wild Thing Said: "This guy’s a bloomin’ fruitcake of the first order. He’s rubber room material."
And Wild Thing, he is not the exception of those with "The WON"; he is the norm. Looking closely, all of the czars and such are in some way left leaning radicals. These are people who believe that the constitution is an ambiguous document, that what we, the majority, would like is not necessarily what we really need, and worse.
And all this is not being suddenly dumped on us, he promised as much all through his campaign, in his writings, and it is visible in his history. This person, (not that much of a MAN), is not interested in a continuingly great America, but rather a reborn, redesigned Amerika.
We are so scrued! GOD save the USA!
“Learned all I need to know about Islam on 9/11″
Posted by: Frankly Opinionated at September 19, 2009 09:18 AM
My 21 year old college student nephew in NY doesn't like Obama. When I asked him why, his response was "I read his book". That's right, this 21 year old went and bought his book and read it. He says by the third chapter you will come to the realization Obama's is racist, communist, and is against everything this country has stood for. He goes on to say that if people would only read what this man has written, he would have never gotten elected to the presidency. Pretty smart kid my sister and her husband raised.
Posted by: BobF at September 19, 2009 09:53 AM
Chrissie,your comments are right on the money.
How this man ever got approved is almost beyond comprehension. It just goes to show you how out of touch our Congress has become.
If nothing else moves like this, are an indicator of how important it is that, 'We the People', keep up the pressure until the 2010 elections, and then vote as many of these, so called 'Representatives', out of office.
Posted by: SEAN. at September 19, 2009 11:36 AM
The right to have intrusive government run your life for your own good? (It's been tried before... didn't work out so well for the people of Germany and the Soviet Union.)
Posted by: Anonymous at September 19, 2009 02:45 PM
Nobody read 'Mein Kampf' either Bob. Lets hope this ia a heads up. More people get the right read on this Nazi.
Posted by: Mark at September 19, 2009 02:45 PM
Sunstein: Obama, not courts, should interpret law
'Beliefs and commitments' of nation's leader should supersede judges
It speaks volumes about this current congress that
Cass Sumstein is any position of power in our government. 2010
Posted by: Bob A at September 19, 2009 03:28 PM
Frankly, your right and to think we had
47% of the vote.
Your t-shirts are a great way to fight back
Frankly. I love when a shirt can open
conversations and let others know too even
if nothing is said how I feel.
Posted by: Wild Thing at September 19, 2009 06:32 PM
BobF., WOW I love it, that is awesome
Bob. Thank you for sharing about your
nephew.
Posted by: Wild Thing at September 19, 2009 06:36 PM
SEAN, I agree so much, it shocks me
there was not a battle cry from
the republican leadership.
"How this man ever got approved is almost beyond comprehension"
Posted by: Wild Thing at September 19, 2009 06:42 PM
Anonymous, exactly, they sure don't
want to learn from history.
Posted by: Wild Thing at September 19, 2009 06:44 PM
Mark, yes, I heard that it is up to
56% now that do not want Obama's
health care. I hope they start to
see what these CZARS are about too
and how much Obama agrees with them.
Posted by: Wild Thing at September 19, 2009 06:46 PM
Bob A., it sure does!!!
Posted by: Wild Thing at September 19, 2009 06:47 PM
I don't think we have that long (2010) before he starts something.
Posted by: Dave 18Zulu at September 19, 2009 07:30 PM
