I HATE posting a WND article...but...

[Boomhauer]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109529

CZAR WARS
Obama's regulatory chief pushes new 'bill of rights'
Cass Sunstein part of effort to change interpretation of Constitution by 2020
Posted: September 11, 2009
12:36 am Eastern

By Aaron Klein

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 old USSR. 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.

(Story continues below)

       
   

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."

Notice that WND is being a little more dramatic than really needed (no s*** some of you are rolling your eyes). And this news is a few years old considering that the book, blog entry and confrences happened back in '04 and '05 and we have not yet heard that Sunstein is pushing this stuff now that he's been appointed.

That said, the man is one of the "true believers" and you can bet he still believes in this. I wonder if we will see him expose his true colors now that he's a "czar" (how I hate that term...) or if he will keep it under wraps? The ideas are despicable, and I hope we never have them, especially embodied into the Constitution (because then it's much harder to get rid of). Several of these have been tried before, are in effect now, or are trying to be pushed into law as we speak, though, and that terribly worries me.

[roo_ster]

Yes, there are many in BHO's administration that do not like America and want to change ti to suit their philosophy.

[RevDisk]

In general, if the WND says the sky is blue, you should double check.  Their accuracy is shockingly low.

[Standing Wolf]

One of the joys of getting old is the certainty one won't live to see the schemes of moon-barking Marxist lunatics supersede American law.

[MicroBalrog]

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.

How is this new?

[RevDisk]

How is this new?

The point of the Constitution is to limit the government and protect the people.  Technically, the federal government is strictly and solely limited to only activities enumerated in the Constitution.  The people have numerous more rights than detailed in the Constitution.

This idea is to reshape the Constitution to protect the government and limit the people.  This is the Leftist version of "marriage amendment".  On its face, it's fairly logical.  Define what is and is not marriage, limit it to its current form.  OTOH, it flips the Constitution on its head.  It empowers the government, giving it rights it does not currently possess.  It takes away rights from the citizenry.

Leftist.  Rightist.  A statist is a statist regardless of wedge issues.   

[Boomhauer]

How is this new?

Those are two of the things I was referring to as already tried/already in place. (doesn't make them any less idiotic, though)

But we really do not want to see that kind of stuff embodied in the Constitution.

Also, IIRC, we are also only a few states away from being able to convene a Constitutional Convention. I doubt anything good would come out of that. Now, whether changes at that convention would pass ratification, I honestly don't know.

[Perd Hapley]

This is the Leftist version of "marriage amendment".  On its face, it's fairly logical.  Define what is and is not marriage, limit it to its current form.  OTOH, it flips the Constitution on its head.  It empowers the government, giving it rights it does not currently possess.  It takes away rights from the citizenry.

Isn't that what incorporation of the Bill of Rights already does? 

[MicroBalrog]

The point of the Constitution is to limit the government and protect the people.  Technically, the federal government is strictly and solely limited to only activities enumerated in the Constitution.  The people have numerous more rights than detailed in the Constitution.

The US government already pursues activities like keeping farm produce prices from falling and fight 'monopolies'.

[Perd Hapley]

But the Constitution doesn't include specific language about those things, much less directly guaranteeing a right to them.

[RevDisk]

Isn't that what incorporation of the Bill of Rights already does? 

I'm not following you exactly.  Incorporation is whether federal rights also apply at the state level as well.  Either way, the federales cannot fringe on your rights.  The incorporation argument is whether the states can violate your rights, rather than the feds.

[Perd Hapley]

Incorporation makes the national government the guarantor, more importantly the interpreter, of your rights.  The federales can "fringe on" your right to X by deciding that you don't have one.

This can be a good thing in the case of homosexual marriage ( to which you don't have a right) or a bad thing in the case of those things to which you do have a right.

[MicroBalrog]

I fail to see a problem.

Suppose the Federal government decides that you do not have a right to free speech guaranteed to you by the Constitution of the United States.

But that, in itself, does not mean that states MUST introduce censorship. They don't have to do so if the locals don't want it. Furthermore, it bears no influence on whether the Constitution of, say, Virginia guarantees the right to free speech.

The only way this can infringe on the 'rights' of the locals is if they feel like introducing censorship in Virginia or (As the case had been historically at the time the 14th was passed) disarm and abuse some freedmen. Oh, the poor little darlings. Not being able to pass their own laws, my heart bleeds for them.

[RevDisk]

Incorporation makes the national government the guarantor, more importantly the interpreter, of your rights.  The federales can "fringe on" your right to X by deciding that you don't have one.

This can be a good thing in the case of homosexual marriage ( to which you don't have a right) or a bad thing in the case of those things to which you do have a right.

Hrm.  Not quite.  Incorporation just determines whether a fed right is enforceable at a state level as well.  (Which is constitutional under the 14th)  IANAL, but I think you mean judicial review, where judges get to determine how much a right gets to be infringed.  And yes, judicial review isn't mentioned per se by the Constitution, but I side with the argument that it's heavily implied.

AFAIK, the biggest interference with the regulation of marriage (barring a Constitutional amendment), is the Full Faith and Credit clause.  Technically, a person gets married in one state, it's Constitutionally valid everywhere even another state has banned it.  Loving v Virginia made that determination regarding anti-miscegenation laws. 

[Perd Hapley]

Roe v Wade.  Nuff said.

[MicroBalrog]

So, under that argument, the states should be free to set any abortion laws they want to? Including keeping it legal if that is their will?

[Perd Hapley]

It's not an argument, so much as a description of how incorporation affects our laws.

[Waitone]

Back to the OP.  Permit me to sooth your fevered brow.  Does it help any for you to learn Cass Sunstein is on Obama's really short list for the next supreme court opening?

Didn't figure it would.

[longeyes]

In these times, re WND, it is better to err on the side of too much "drama" than too little.  Vigilance is our friend.

[Boomhauer]

Back to the OP.  Permit me to sooth your fevered brow.  Does it help any for you to learn Cass Sunstein is on Obama's really short list for the next supreme court opening?

Didn't figure it would.

Oh s***. That scares me a lot worse than the WND article I posted.

[HankB]

In general, if the WND says the sky is blue, you should double check.  Their accuracy is shockingly low.

Why would you say that? They're every bit as good as the major networks.

(Uh . . . wait a minute . . . )

[AZRedhawk44]

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.

Logic fail.

If implemented by US code, it will be deemed unconstitutional and functionally illogical by the SCOTUS.

If attempts are made to amend the Constitution, you'll never get us "flyover" folks to go along with it.

No such thing as a "welfare right", and the notion that any rights can be "granted by the state" is so abhorrent to rational thought that I'd run screaming into the dark of night were it to actually happen.

[MicroBalrog]

Why would you say that? They're every bit as good as the major networks.

(Uh . . . wait a minute . . . )

I read somewhere that there are two forms of scam: a Western Scam and an Eastern Scam.

An Eastern Scam is a pile of watches piled up on a dirty rug in a bazaar somewhere in Tadjikistan, with a man screaming: "Rolex watches! Rolex watches, ten dollars!"

A Western Scam involves the same watches, cleaned, polished up, and sold in a store somewhere in Europe, in special 'Rolex' boxes at the price of real Rolexes.

WND, I would argue, is a form of Eastern Scam, where CNN or MSNBC operates a Western Scam.