Sunstein says: Obama, not courts, should interpret law

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
OK, NOW WILL YOU ADMIT THINGS HAVE GONE TOO FAR? HOLY CRAP!!!!!!!!!!



JERUSALEM – 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.


[edit on 18-9-2009 by I_am_Spartacus]

[edit on 18-9-2009 by I_am_Spartacus]


Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

also edite the title to remove txt speak.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by Crakeur]




posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't a country whose leader is able to create / interpret / dismiss / ignore laws already in existence? I believe it's called a dictatorship, no?

What I find so amazing is that Obama has YET to appoint a czar that isn't completely controversial and over-the-top. Between all of the czars that were more than $100,000+ behind in their taxes, the food czar that tried to kill everyone with bovine growth hormone, and the health czar trying to mandate vaccines, vaccines, and more vaccines, one has to realize that Obama has padded his administration with more than enough manpower to have us all destroyed / killed / zombie-like in less than a month's time.

Money? Check.
Healthcare? Check.
Food? Check.
Autos? Check.
Housing market? Check.
Education? Check.
Law? Check.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by lpowell0627]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by I_am_Spartacus
 


He's absolutely right. Obama is not a duly elected official. He is the best. He is the *messiah*.
He's my *sigh* hero.

Why do we need the judicial branch of the government anyway? All they do is take up time and waste money, which could be better spent on ACORN or SEIU.

It's the hate-mongers out there that try to stifle Obama and what he wants to do with this country. And that is making it a Utopia. Where everyone works, for the betterment of the state.

The Constitution, the laws, are out-dated anachronisms. Time for some hope and change around here.




posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
ohhh lord, Glenn Beck's head just exploded...

I haven't researched this yet, but if everything that is posted is true. This will keep Glenn busy for a month!!

(not that it matters with FOX)

[edit on 18-9-2009 by TrainDispatcher]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Why, why, WHY am I not the least bit suprised by this "news"??? It just fits the mould. If this doesn't seal it for those who are still wondering what the chosen one is trying to do, then I have no idea what else it would take. This is just... just... appalling for the lack of more colorful language!



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrainDispatcher
ohhh lord, Glenn Beck's head just exploded...

I haven't researched this yet, but if everything that is posted is true. This will keep Glenn busy for a month!!


This should keep us ALL busy for another 3 years and 4 months (at the most hopefully). Apparently those who thought he just might want to become a real life dictator have been given some credence after this one WOW!!


[edit on 18-9-2009 by I_am_Spartacus]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I just realized that the hardest thing to swallow,is that this news doesn't even suprise me. I guess I have become desensitized to idioticy.
The next thing I expect to come out of the White House is an execuitive order pardoning all illegal aliens. That way Obama won't have to deal with that pesky old congress.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
The second bill of rights waas actually written by FDR, and yes he did have the unmitigated gall to present it to Congress. Needless to say, it went nowhere. Unfortunately, the progressives might have enough power to push this through as an amendment, just because it reads well. Most people won't stop to conisder the implications. If something like the second bill of rights became law, Obama would succeed in doing what FDR tried to accomplish and failed. He will have turned us into a socialist country with no rights at all.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by I_am_Spartacus
 


Ugghhh... this is just part of the growing trend of those in government not knowing how our government is supposed to work constitutionally. First Palin didn't know what a V.P. did and then she wanted to broaden the V.P.'s powers. Now this.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by kettlebellysmith
 
I see your concern but it won't happen unless some major shakeups occur. They need two thirds of any body( house, congress, ratifying states) to pass an amendment, and they do not have them-especially for this. In 2010 the best the Dems can hope for is to hold their majorities as is, and that is wishful thinking. Add in some of the bludogs that would most likely vote against it and I see no way this would pass at this time without some sort of "help".



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by glevel
reply to post by kettlebellysmith
 
I see your concern but it won't happen unless some major shakeups occur. They need two thirds of any body( house, congress, ratifying states) to pass an amendment, and they do not have them-especially for this. In 2010 the best the Dems can hope for is to hold their majorities as is, and that is wishful thinking. Add in some of the bludogs that would most likely vote against it and I see no way this would pass at this time without some sort of "help".



The "help" is what we have to worry about. I think they have some "help" in mind. Granted the patriots will fight it if they try something but do we want to go there? As much as I despise just about everything obama is and stands for, I never really believed they would try this, it looks like I may have been wrong.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by I_am_Spartacus]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
"Obama doesn't lie. He implies, he misdirects, he misleads -- so fluidly and incessantly that he risks transmuting eloquence into mere slickness.

Slickness wasn't fatal to "Slick Willie" Clinton because he possessed a winning, nearly irresistible charm. Obama's persona is more cool, distant, imperial. The charming scoundrel can get away with endless deception; the righteous redeemer cannot. "

Charles Krauthammer



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by glevel
 


Could he manipulate the use of Executive Order in order to pass it?


Until the early 1900s, executive orders went mostly unannounced and undocumented, seen only by the agencies to which they were directed. However, the Department of State instituted a numbering scheme for executive orders in 1907, starting retroactively with an order issued on September 22, 1862, by President Abraham Lincoln. Executive order number 1 is The Emancipation Proclamation.[1]

Until the 1950s, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.

Wars have been fought upon executive order, including the 1999 Kosovo War during Bill Clinton's second term in office. However, all such wars have had authorizing resolutions from Congress. The extent to which the president may exercise military power independently of Congress and the scope of the War Powers Resolution remain unresolved constitutional issues, although all Presidents since its passage have complied with the terms of the Resolution while maintaining that they are not constitutionally required to do so.
Link: en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)


Yes, the above states that a President cannot CREATE LAW, but in the article in the OPs thread, interestingly they stick to the word 'interpret', which is far different than creating anew.

Thoughts? Any wiggle room?




new topics
top topics
 
5

log in

join