PDA

View Full Version : Cass Sunstein to get Consent and Approval TODAY?


Legasat
09-09-2009, 10:04 AM
According to Glenn Beck, Harry Reid is trying to get Cass Sunstein confirmed in the U. S. Senate TODAY (in a cloture vote). They are going to confirm Mr. Sunstein as Obama's Regulatory Czar. They are trying to get him Consent and Approval because of the furor surrounding Van Jones.

Cass Sunstein is VEHEMANTLY anti-gun. Wants to outlaw hunting of every kind, and sees no reason why ANY citizen should own a gun. He is also an animal rights fanatic. I have read that he said in 1999 "I see no reason why your dog couldn't sue you". I love animals too, but there are practical limits.

The regulatory Czar can't make law, but he will have a certain degree of control over the regulations of how things get done. For example, it is not illegal to purchase a handgun in NYC. But, try to get one. It is VERY difficult because of regulations. I would hate to see that happen nationwide.

What this really means, I don't know yet. Whether or not it will really happen, I don't know yet, but I will continue my research.

wildhawker
09-09-2009, 10:22 AM
Honestly, not sure this belongs in 2A. If every appointment with an anti-gun stance is posted on and discussed we'd break GeoVario. (Kidding, Ben :P)

yellowfin
09-09-2009, 10:33 AM
The question is, of course, if this guy would have influence over the ATF. Which makes me wonder, at the moment, who is the head of the ATF and how bad along the spectrum of things they are.

Legasat
09-09-2009, 10:33 AM
This isn't my website, so it's up to you whether or not to move it, but I think it belongs, since it will directly effect our 2A rights.

I am on hold with the NRA-ILA to verify this story.

Hunt
09-09-2009, 10:51 AM
Honestly, not sure this belongs in 2A. If every appointment with an anti-gun stance is posted on and discussed we'd break GeoVario. (Kidding, Ben :P)

ha you guys better wake up and quite arguing about little technicalities, while you are arguing Cass Sunstein will be tweeking regulations to make it illegal to hunt on public land and impossible to buy ammo affordably. You folks totally underestimate the power grab and radical nature of this Administration. They can't ban guns because of Heller but they sure can over- regulate ammo production and sales you better wake up.

Hunt
09-09-2009, 10:52 AM
This isn't my website, so it's up to you whether or not to move it, but I think it belongs, since it will directly effect our 2A rights.

I am on hold with the NRA-ILA to verify this story.

Glen Beck just verified with NRA, yes vote today--this is NOT good certianly demonstrates how they operate.

hoffmang
09-09-2009, 11:27 AM
The Sunstein appointment has been widely opposed by NRA and others. However, the case is not so open and shut when Glenn Reynolds and Eugene Volokh aren't so sure Cass is wildly anti-gun. Said a different way, Dr. Sunstein may be one of the most pro-gun "czars" appointed...

-Gene

bwiese
09-09-2009, 11:55 AM
The Sunstein appointment has been widely opposed by NRA and others. However, the case is not so open and shut when Glenn Reynolds and Eugene Volokh aren't so sure Cass is wildly anti-gun. Said a different way, Dr. Sunstein may be one of the most pro-gun "czars" appointed...

-Gene


See article

http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_06-2009_09_12.shtml#1252441367
(http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_06-2009_09_12.shtml#1252441367)

There's also little we can do on this.

From a practical standpoint, we're in California and have our worries to fight about. Frankly, we're fairly well off overall on a Federal standpoint given Heller court balance.

Rather than worry about Cass Sunstein, we need to be killing AB 962 right now.

yellowfin
09-09-2009, 12:00 PM
The Sunstein appointment has been widely opposed by NRA and others. However, the case is not so open and shut when Glenn Reynolds and Eugene Volokh aren't so sure Cass is wildly anti-gun. Said a different way, Dr. Sunstein may be one of the most pro-gun "czars" appointed...

-GeneGiven the other appointments, that isn't saying much. That's like saying between liver cancer, spinal cancer, and pancreatic cancer, you'll live longest with the second one which may kill you in eight months instead of three to six. How about ZERO cancer? Let's not lose sight of that.

IGOTDIRT4U
09-09-2009, 12:00 PM
See article

http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_06-2009_09_12.shtml#1252441367
(http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_06-2009_09_12.shtml#1252441367)

There's also little we can do on this.

From a practical standpoint, we're in California and have our worries to fight about. Frankly, we're fairly well off overall on a Federal standpoint given Heller court balance.

Rather than worry about Cass Sunstein, we need to be killing AB 962 right now.

Sheesh! Reading that, you get a 50/50 deal with him. The related articles don't make his stand any clearer. What I did take away from the article was that he is not rabidly anti-gun, but has no qualms about any laws restricting the right, to a degree not yet spoken details.

POLICESTATE
09-09-2009, 12:03 PM
This guy sounds like another ivy-league elitist, like we need anymore of them running things in this country. How about people who actually represent America, by which I mean people from our stock and not snobby New Englanders?

Mike d'Ocla
09-09-2009, 12:10 PM
Why not read for yourself what Sunstein himself says instead of what someone else thinks he says? Sunstein's op-ed from the Boston Globe seems pretty reasonable to me:

(Warning--good reading skills and rational thinking skills required.)

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/06/27/americas_21st_century_gun_right/

Legasat
09-09-2009, 12:27 PM
The Volokh post seems to point to the fact that Sunstein agrees with the history and methodology under which the Court reached the decision.

Sunstein makes it clear that he considers Heller rightly decided; he is no originalist, but instead believes that the Court owed some deference to the moral commitments of tens of millions of Americans. Thus, Sunstein qualifies as among the most "pro-Second Amendment" of Obama administration nominees.

I think it is a stretch to believe that because Sunstein believes the Court reached the correct "legal" decision, that makes him Pro 2A. And being "the most" pro 2A member of the administration, could also mean he is "the least" anti-2A, and still be anti-2A.

Later on it is mentioned: Update: A commenter has posted a video of a Sunstein lecture at U. Chicago in 2007 which presents a much more hostile attitude towards the individual right than is expressed in the Harvard article.

From everything I have read, this is much more in line with Sunstein's real attitude on the 2A.

JarenC81
09-09-2009, 1:36 PM
The only thing that Cass makes clear in that article is that he's trying to use the Heller decision to make an argument for the "living document." Basically using a clear conservative victory as proof of a generally accepted liberal idea.

I'm no historian by any stretch but weren't there less regulations and restrictions on firearms 40-50 years ago? Isn't the climate changing to that of being more restrictive? Where is the "change in the public climate" that he is referring to? Most likely I lack the "good reading skills and rational thinking skills required" to understand what he's saying.

Can'thavenuthingood
09-09-2009, 1:57 PM
I suspect he or they will use the regulatory agencies to make law.

Those laws that don't get Legislated into existence will most likely be back doored into being.

The Health Care plan could make guns a Health & Safety issue. Condors are dying in Az & Ca so that could be stretched to a Fed ban/fight on lead.

They are here to control not help.

Vick

Mike d'Ocla
09-09-2009, 2:10 PM
The only thing that Cass makes clear in that article is that he's trying to use the Heller decision to make an argument for the "living document." Basically using a clear conservative victory as proof of a generally accepted liberal idea.

I'm no historian by any stretch but weren't there less regulations and restrictions on firearms 40-50 years ago? Isn't the climate changing to that of being more restrictive? Where is the "change in the public climate" that he is referring to? Most likely I lack the "good reading skills and rational thinking skills required" to understand what he's saying.

I think it's probably useful to try to take ideology out of the argument and look at facts. Ideological wishes and dreams are not the same thing as what is actually happening on the ground in this society and in the courts.

Sure, most conservatives think the Constitution ought to be absolutely unchanging. Most liberals probably are more accepting of change in general. The fact is that the "law" in this country, Constitutional or otherwise, is changing as our society and the world that surrounds us changes and has always done so.

It might be useful for the purposes of effective politial action for gun owners and advocates to recognize these changes and learn to deal with them effectively.

Yes, regulation of firearms in the past was different than it is now. Recognition and description of change is what the study of history is all about. Ideology has very little need of history.

I think that political efficacy depends on thorough understanding of history. Clearly others think differently.

POLICESTATE
09-09-2009, 2:16 PM
To put things into a slightly different perspective it seems to me all of these Czars are not going to make government smaller but bigger, and bigger government is certainly not going to help 2A when you stop to consider all the various groups and entities that have their own little pet projects, e.g. saving the condors from lead, saving our drinking water from lead, saving people from gun violence and using healthcare reform to do it etc...

xlimey
09-09-2009, 3:18 PM
I started another thread without looking closely enough for open threads - figured it belonged here instead.

With all the drama that has been stirred up over Van Jones - more attention is being paid to some of his other "Czars" - I just heard a newsflash on Fox News about Sunstein. Sunstein is not really a "Czar" in the way that Jones was - because Sunstein's appointment requires Senate Confirmation. Harry Reid put forward a motion for "cloture" which means a simple majority is all that is necessary for confirmation. Sixty votes were required for the Cloture vote - it passed with over 60 votes - meaning a bunch of weak-suck delusional Republicans voted for this loon.

Sunstein is another of Obama's pals from Chicago who is an animal-rights activist. He thinks animals should be capable of being represented in Court, thinks we all eat too much meat, would like to ban hunting etc.

As an attorney, he is yet another radical pal of Barry's who could find himself on a short list for the next Supreme Court appointment. He has been described by other lawyers as to the left of Justice Gindsberg...

I will take a look at the links to op-ed pieces in this thread but at the moment I can find little reason for enthusiasm that this guy is pro 2A.

If you check the republican votes for cloture you will find the usual suspects at it again...

JarenC81
09-09-2009, 3:19 PM
I think it's probably useful to try to take ideology out of the argument and look at facts. Ideological wishes and dreams are not the same thing as what is actually happening on the ground in this society and in the courts.

So if you can't beat 'em join 'em? I guess I just see direct conflict in having a constitution with an amendment process vis-a-vis a "living document" interpretation to law making. Pick one and stick with it.

However, I still don't see how Cass is pro-2A from that article. It seems to me his purpose was a backhanded way of saying: "See, even republicans have benefited from the living document" but, the basis for his argument, a changing climate in favor of firearm ownership, is flawed since in recent history exactly the opposite has happened in terms of firearm regulation. Heller isn't an example of the court taking into account "popular belief." In my (admittedly very novice) opinion that decision was much more originalist. Even so, I think it's disingenuous to say that life long appointees can adequately measure the pulse of society vs. an amendment process that specifically includes the public. Not sure if that line of thought is ideological dreams.

Legasat
09-09-2009, 4:27 PM
Still think he is Pro 2A?

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0Zfex10v08c&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0Zfex10v08c&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Hunt
09-09-2009, 5:04 PM
See article

http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_06-2009_09_12.shtml#1252441367
(http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_06-2009_09_12.shtml#1252441367)

There's also little we can do on this.

From a practical standpoint, we're in California and have our worries to fight about. Frankly, we're fairly well off overall on a Federal standpoint given Heller court balance.

Rather than worry about Cass Sunstein, we need to be killing AB 962 right now.
uh why waste the time

Mike d'Ocla
09-09-2009, 5:32 PM
So if you can't beat 'em join 'em? I guess I just see direct conflict in having a constitution with an amendment process vis-a-vis a "living document" interpretation to law making. Pick one and stick with it.

However, I still don't see how Cass is pro-2A from that article. It seems to me his purpose was a backhanded way of saying: "See, even republicans have benefited from the living document" but, the basis for his argument, a changing climate in favor of firearm ownership, is flawed since in recent history exactly the opposite has happened in terms of firearm regulation. Heller isn't an example of the court taking into account "popular belief." In my (admittedly very novice) opinion that decision was much more originalist. Even so, I think it's disingenuous to say that life long appointees can adequately measure the pulse of society vs. an amendment process that specifically includes the public. Not sure if that line of thought is ideological dreams.

No, I didn't say "if you can't beat 'em join 'em." That's your phrase, not mine.

If you think amending the Constitution is going to be a straightforward, rational, democratic process, read a little history. For example the history of prohibition.

I also did not state that Sunstein is pro-second amendment. And I don't think that he is in the sense that many people here are. All I think is that he respects the law and the real, existing legal process regarding the changing interpretations of constitutional law over time.

JarenC81
09-09-2009, 7:23 PM
If you think amending the Constitution is going to be a straightforward, rational, democratic process, read a little history. For example the history of prohibition.

Really? Read a little civics, because it is a straightforward and democratic process. Though I'd agree with you that most politicians don't do anything rational.
All I think is that he respects the law and the real, existing legal process regarding the changing interpretations of constitutional law over time.
Again, Really? We currently have a real, existing mechanism for amending the constitution and is he respecting it when he advocates the "living" constitution? Though I think you're right, it's much easier to affect change via a few justices rather than two-thirds in both houses, but then again perhaps that was the intent.

Regardless, I don't know how much respect he has for anything when suggesting that the first amendment should be reformulated because he has concerns of whether the "constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals." Or when he says "In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’?"

Mike d'Ocla
09-09-2009, 7:47 PM
We currently have a real, existing mechanism for amending the constitution and is he respecting it when he advocates the "living" constitution? Though I think you're right, it's much easier to affect change via a few justices rather than two-thirds in both houses, but then again perhaps that was the intent.

Regardless, I don't know how much respect he has for anything when suggesting that the first amendment should be reformulated because he has concerns of whether the "constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals." Or when he says "In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’?"

There are endless difficulties in trying to determine what our founders' "intent" was. It was a much different world in the 18th century. English was, I think it's useful to say, a different language, even. The meanings of words change over time. Try reading Middle English (Chaucer) or Old English sometime. Or look at the Oxford English Dictionary which is an historical dictionary which notes the changes in meanings of words over time. Most unabridged dictionaries also do this to a limited extent.

I admit that it may be difficult to respect the ideas of someone whom you suspect does not think just as you do or as correctly as you do. But it is possible that Sunstein is truly committed to preserving (and even expanding) our freedoms, especially of speech, given that our world is not longer very much like the world of the 18th century. He could be a good man, with the best of intentions, even if he has the audacity to take a critical look at the Constitution.

Gator Monroe
09-09-2009, 7:53 PM
If you vote Democrat ,75% of the time your voting for an Anti .

cousinkix1953
09-09-2009, 8:16 PM
If you vote Democrat ,75% of the time your voting for an Anti .
I'll bet this number is even higher here in the PRK. I can't think of any pro-2A Dems any more...

nick
09-09-2009, 9:50 PM
I think it's probably useful to try to take ideology out of the argument and look at facts. Ideological wishes and dreams are not the same thing as what is actually happening on the ground in this society and in the courts.

Sure, most conservatives think the Constitution ought to be absolutely unchanging. Most liberals probably are more accepting of change in general. The fact is that the "law" in this country, Constitutional or otherwise, is changing as our society and the world that surrounds us changes and has always done so.

It might be useful for the purposes of effective politial action for gun owners and advocates to recognize these changes and learn to deal with them effectively.

Yes, regulation of firearms in the past was different than it is now. Recognition and description of change is what the study of history is all about. Ideology has very little need of history.

I think that political efficacy depends on thorough understanding of history. Clearly others think differently.

If there's one thing History teaches us, it's that people don't change, and they tend to repeat the same mistakes. They also think that they're the first ones to make those mistakes, and even if they bother to learn History enough to see that their ideas aren't actually new, and that they've already failed before, people just dismiss that as "we know better now, we're much more enlightened now".

Since people, their motives and actions don't really change, I don't see a good reason for the basic laws that worked well for them 200 years ago to change. Emphasis on basic laws. That's what Constitution is.

Of course, the people who subscribe to the idea of "living Constitution" know better. Just like those before them :)

nick
09-09-2009, 9:53 PM
There are endless difficulties in trying to determine what our founders' "intent" was. It was a much different world in the 18th century. English was, I think it's useful to say, a different language, even. The meanings of words change over time. Try reading Middle English (Chaucer) or Old English sometime. Or look at the Oxford English Dictionary which is an historical dictionary which notes the changes in meanings of words over time. Most unabridged dictionaries also do this to a limited extent.

I admit that it may be difficult to respect the ideas of someone whom you suspect does not think just as you do or as correctly as you do. But it is possible that Sunstein is truly committed to preserving (and even expanding) our freedoms, especially of speech, given that our world is not longer very much like the world of the 18th century. He could be a good man, with the best of intentions, even if he has the audacity to take a critical look at the Constitution.

Actually, if one bothers to read what the Founders themselves wrote, it's not that hard to determine. Unfortunately, most people repeat talking points from other opinion pieces rather than actually reading the sources. Which is the difference between studying popular History vs. studying History, and the reason historians aren't too popular with governments.

JarenC81
09-09-2009, 11:06 PM
There are endless difficulties in trying to determine what our founders' "intent" was. It was a much different world in the 18th century. English was, I think it's useful to say, a different language, even. The meanings of words change over time. Try reading Middle English (Chaucer) or Old English sometime. Or look at the Oxford English Dictionary which is an historical dictionary which notes the changes in meanings of words over time. Most unabridged dictionaries also do this to a limited extent.

Ugh, ok... The constitution was written in a different language. How trite.


I admit that it may be difficult to respect the ideas of someone whom you suspect does not think just as you do or as correctly as you do. But it is possible that Sunstein is truly committed to preserving (and even expanding) our freedoms, especially of speech, given that our world is not longer very much like the world of the 18th century. He could be a good man, with the best of intentions, even if he has the audacity to take a critical look at the Constitution.
Yes, it is possible that he is committed to preserving and even expanding our freedoms but I highly doubt it. Especially when he proposes "fairness doctrine" type ideology towards the internet and email. I assume thats what your talking about with respect to free speech and our world today. There are arguments to be made about "fairness doctrine" and they are worth listening to, however lets be honest, they are in direct contrast to freedom of speech which Sunstien himself admits. Perhaps those were just his ramblings or academic papers meant as an argumentative exercise. Perhaps he has the ability to remove himself of radical ideology while serving in his post. I don't know but his views certainly are at odds with mine which is why I criticize.

Gray Peterson
09-09-2009, 11:49 PM
I'll be this number is even higher here in the PRK. I can't think of any pro-2A Dems any more...


Senator Rod Wright.

dominic
09-10-2009, 6:50 AM
Sunstein says "animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …"

Well then I propose that I should then be able to bring suit against animals. I say lets bring back the animal trials seen in the middle ages where if an animal wronged you you could put it on trial and if its found guilty you could execute it and have a B-B-Q afterward.

Animal trials actually happened too. If you don't believe it read "The law is an ***: The medievel prosecution and capital punishment of animals" http://www.animalsandsociety.org/assets/library/276_s216.pdf

If you are gored by an ox or kicked by a mule, sue it.

Old Timer
09-10-2009, 7:30 AM
Ugh, ok... The constitution was written in a different language. How trite.Well, your mischaracterization of Mike's statement is trite, but Mike is, essentially, correct. He may be a little confused regarding the time frames of Old English, Middle English, and Modern English, but he is correct regarding philological changes in word usage over time.

Just to clarify:

Old English was dominant from 500AD through 1100AD (Norman Conquest, 1066)
Middle English was dominant from 1100 through 1500.
Modern English has been dominant from 1500 to the Present.

As can be seen the US constitution, written in the late 1700s, or the late 18th century, was clearly written in Modern English. However, philology does not slavishly follow time tables. Just look at the 2nd Amendment to see this fact glaringly illustrated. "Well regulated" means something entirely different today than it did in 1787 when it was written or 1788 when it was ratified.

The philology section of the Oxford English Dictionary, as already stated, can be very useful in deciphering the meaning of words as they were used in the late 18th century. Most early 21st century English readers are relatively ignorant of both etymology and philology. Another "triumph" of the American education system!

JarenC81
09-10-2009, 2:45 PM
Well, unless I've used that argument over and over my "mischaracterization" as you put it is not trite(triumph). I've heard the argument that words mean something completely different as a way to discredit the 2nd. And truly I've lost interest in that argument as I sincerely believe that any reasonable person can understand it's meaning. Not to mention that the 2nd was not written in a vacuum.

Perhaps my comment was a bit much but he did say English was a different language.

cousinkix1953
09-11-2009, 11:53 PM
Excepts from this lunatic's speeches are finding their way to cable TV and the internet.

More power to those college students, who conducted a successful sting operation against ACORN too...