Hatch & Bennett

Dub

Active Member
Messages
421
Senators Bob Bennett & Orrin Hatch of Utah both voted in favor of the confirmation of Cass R. Sunstein to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (in short ?Regulatory Czar?). Is this what they think their constituents want?

It's not only that Cass Sunstein believes ?we should ban hunting,? or his belief that animals have the right to sue in court; It is his perverted view of the constitution (see his book Radicals in Robes, especially chapter 9 ? ?Guns, God, and More?) and his expertise in using existing laws to tweak regulations until his vision for America is accomplished (see Sunstein?s book Nudge).

What are Bennett & Hatch doing?!

Here's more about the guy they voted to for to be in charge of regulation:

Will that deer you killed file suit against you using his new Obama lawer? This is a must read. Wow is this the change people voted for?

Cass Sunstein, the Harvard University Law School professor tapped by President-elect Obama to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has a secret aim to push a radical animal-rights agenda in the White House. Sunstein supports outlawing sport hunting, giving animals the legal right to file lawsuits, and using government regulations to phase out meat consumption.

In a 2007 speech at Harvard University, Sunstein argued in favor of entirely ?eliminating current practices such as ? meat eating.? He also proposed: ?We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn't a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It's time now.?

Sunstein wrote in his 2004 book ?Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions? that ?animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives ? Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian-like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients? behalf.?

Sunstein?s work could spell the end of animal agriculture, retail sales of meat and dairy foods, hunting and fishing, biomedical research, pet ownership, zoos and aquariums, traveling circuses, and countless other things Americans take for granted.

Cass Sunstein owes Americans an honest appraisal of his animal rights agenda as America?s top regulator. Americans don't realize that the next four years could be full of bizarre initiatives plucked from the wildest dreams of the animal-rights fringe. Think about every outrageous idea PETA and the Humane Society of the United States have ever had, and imagine them all having the force of federal law. This doesn't look good for hunters, ranchers, restaurateurs, biomedical researchers, or ordinary pet owners.?

Here's an article wrote by Cass:

America's 21st-century gun right
Email|Print|Single Page| Text size ? + By Cass Sunstein
June 27, 2008
FOR THE FIRST time in the nation's history, the US Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess guns for nonmilitary purposes.

This is a stunning development - and a dramatic departure from how the Constitution has long been understood. Despite the court's emphasis on constitutional text and history, its 5-4 decision yesterday in the District of Columbia gun control case reveals a much broader point: Constitutional change often comes from the efforts of energetic political movements, of which the movement for gun rights is merely one example.

As recently as 1992, then Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative, publicly declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all." And until 2007, not a single federal court had invoked the Second Amendment to strike down a restriction on gun ownership.

To be sure, everyone should agree that the Second Amendment creates some kind of individual right. But what kind? The text is unclear: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Yesterday's opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, finds an individual right to possess guns for traditionally lawful purposes, including hunting and self-defense. In an opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, the dissenters respond that the Second Amendment right is limited to the use of weapons for military purposes and does not extend to hunting and personal defense.

The 157 pages produced by the justices delve deep into the Constitution's text and history - with references to William Blackstone, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and many others. On the history, reasonable people can disagree about which side is right. But what happened yesterday cannot be adequately understood by reading what the justices wrote. The court's decision would have been exceedingly unlikely without the efforts of many citizens over the last two decades to establish the existence of an individual right to bear arms for purposes of hunting and self-defense.

In this way, the court's ruling is akin to decisions that initially seem cut from a very different cloth. In 1954, the court established, for the first time, that racial segregation was unconstitutional. In the process, it inaugurated a series of rulings defining the nature of the right to be free from racial segregation. In 1971, the court struck down, for the first time, a law discriminating on the basis of sex. In the process, it inaugurated a series of rulings establishing the scope of the right to be free from sex discrimination. In 1996, the court struck down, for the first time, a law discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Courts are continuing to elaborate the nature of the right to be free from discrimination on that basis.

In each case, the court responded to successful social movements and massive changes in national understandings.

Of course the Second Amendment debate has a distinctive feature. Historians generally reject the view that, when ratified, any provision of the Constitution banned racial segregation or discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation. But many historians think that when ratified, the Second Amendment did protect the right to bear arms for self-defense.

Nonetheless, the court lacks a time machine, and it would be preposterous to understand yesterday's decision as simply channeling of history. Many historians insist that the Second Amendment right is limited to military purposes. The court's acceptance of a broader interpretation has everything to do with a change in the public climate in which Republican appointees, in particular, have become sympathetic to the gun right.

We will now see many years of efforts to decide the scope of that right. The results of those efforts will reflect, in part, what the court said yesterday. But even more, they will reflect the energy and strength of political communities on both sides of the debate.

There is a still larger lesson here. Though the Constitution has governed the nation for well over two centuries, its meaning is not stable over time. In 1970, the Constitution did not mean what it meant in 1950. In 2008, the Constitution is quite different from what it was in 1988 - and in 2028, we will probably be in for some major surprises.

Even when the court purports to speak for the original understanding of the Constitution, it is usually responsive not only to people long dead, but also to those now living.

Cass Sunstein, a professor at Harvard Law School, is the coauthor of "Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness"

Let Hatch and Bennett know what you think.

Dub
 
Thanks for this update.. I am no longer a resident of Utah.. but I did try to let people know about this confirmation... It isn't just Utah representatives... even though our Idaho delegation did not vote to confirm him. There is no longer time to sit by and wait for others to take first step. We have a fight on our hands!! Thanks again
 
Romans 1:25 they changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped to served the creature more than the Creator.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom