Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,023 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 852,545
Pageviews Today: 1,513,802Threads Today: 641Posts Today: 11,283
05:22 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

OBAMA'S Science Czar Targets the CONSTITUTION for Change by 2020

 
The Viceroy
User ID: 740955
United States
09/11/2009 09:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
OBAMA'S Science Czar Targets the CONSTITUTION for Change by 2020
Obama's regulatory chief pushes new 'bill of rights'
Cass Sunstein part of effort to change interpretation of Constitution by 2020
[link to www.wnd.com]
Posted: September 11, 2009
12:36 am Eastern

NEW YORK –
A government that is constitutionally required to offer each citizen a "useful" job in the farms or industries of the nation. A country whose leadership intercedes to ensure every farmer can sell his product for a good return. A nation that has the power to act against "unfair competition" and monopolies in business.
.
This is not a description of Cuba, communist China, or the USSR until 1991. It's the vision of the future of the U.S, as mandated by a radical new "bill of rights" drawn up and pushed by President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein. Until now, Sunstein's proposal has received little scrutiny.

In 2004, Sunstein penned a 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. His inspiration for a new bill of rights came from President Roosevelt's 1944 proposal of a different, new set of bill of rights.
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."





Sunstein's blog:


In my dialogue with Bruce Ackerman, I will be arguing for the importance of focussing quite narrowly on the Constitution in 2020 -- the founding document as it is interpreted in courts. I 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. This idea, sometimes masquerading under the name of originalism or strict construction, represents a form of judicial hubris; it is bad history and bad law. It should be exposed and rejected as such.

For 2020, what should be asserted instead is a form of judicial minimalism, one that also gives the democratic process wide room to maneuver. The appropriate path is not charted by Roe v. Wade; it is charted instead by West Coast Hotel, upholding minimum wage legislation, and Katzenbach v. Morgan, allowing Congress to ban literacy tests. Moderates and liberals should not want the Supreme Court to march on the road marked out by the Warren Court. They should celebrate instead rulings that defer to Congress and that invalidate legislation rarely and only through narrow, unambitious rulings, akin to the Court's recent decision in the Hamdi case.

Minimalists insist on a democratic conception of the free speech principle and also on procedural safeguards for those deprived of their liberty. But they reject any Citizen's Agenda if it is understood as part of constitutional law proper.

In other words, it is exceedingly important to distinguish between the Constitution in 2020 and what would be good in 2020. UnlIke Ackerman, I do not favor "a political coalition that will ultimately be in a position to name Supreme Court justices who will repudiate The Slaughterhouse Cases, and give constitutional meaning to the 'privileges' and 'immunities' of citizenship that make sense in the twenty-first century."

One qualification is that the United States does not only have a Constitution; it also has a set of constitutive commitments, beyond mere policies but without a formal constitutional status. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights was an effort to establish several such commitments, including, above all, decent opportunity and minimal security. I will briefly discuss the value of seeing the Second Bill of Rights as part of the nation's self-definition in 2020 -- though not of seeing it as part of our formal constitution. The insistence on the Second Bill of Rights is best regarded as part of democratic deliberation, not as part of constitutional law.

-- Cass Sunstein
The Viceroy (OP)
User ID: 740955
United States
09/11/2009 09:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: OBAMA'S Science Czar Targets the CONSTITUTION for Change by 2020
Sorry, Regulatory Czar
Mockingbird

User ID: 652961
United States
09/11/2009 09:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: OBAMA'S Science Czar Targets the CONSTITUTION for Change by 2020
The Constitution cannot be changed without being radified by the states, so this isn't going to happen, because we're not going to let it happen.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 78297307
United States
12/31/2019 12:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: OBAMA'S Science Czar Targets the CONSTITUTION for Change by 2020
They sure are trying.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77324289
United States
05/23/2020 12:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: OBAMA'S Science Czar Targets the CONSTITUTION for Change by 2020
To read
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77930416
United States
05/23/2020 01:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: OBAMA'S Science Czar Targets the CONSTITUTION for Change by 2020
Obama is evil to his core. Mark my words. The truth about him is coming out into the public media real soon.
Wa1984

User ID: 79384030
United States
01/18/2021 08:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: OBAMA'S Science Czar Targets the CONSTITUTION for Change by 2020
Obama is evil to his core. Mark my words. The truth about him is coming out into the public media real soon.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77930416



rose


yoda





GLP