'Emperor' Obama Should Interpret Law Not Courts

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Some of 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.
===========

The fucker must be totally insane.

He is. There is no guarantee of any of those and should not be. You have no right but the right of opportunity. You have no right to an outcome.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Some of 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.
===========

The fucker must be totally insane.

He is. There is no guarantee of any of those and should not be. You have no right but the right of opportunity. You have no right to an outcome.

You have no right to stop me from blowing you away if you get in my face?

 

[Pulsar]

Edited: Reading comprehension =(

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Pulsar

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Some of 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.
===========

The fucker must be totally insane.

He is. There is no guarantee of any of those and should not be. You have no right but the right of opportunity. You have no right to an outcome.

You have no right to stop me from blowing you away if you get in my face?

I think you need to read the constitution, and understand the different between a right and something that is NOT the right. You seem to be very confused about the two.

May I suggest that it's you that is confused. We are talking about a radical right web site's claims that the person in question is himself the real radical as we see here:

"WND also reported Sunstein proposed a radical new "bill of rights" in a 2004 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."

So we are not talking about what the Constitution in the Bill of Rights says, but what one radical group says some other purported radical says should be among those rights not what is there now.

So we are not talking about what folk claim is in the Bill of Rights, but what the implication of those rights ought to be interpreted at the current time of history as per the guy's liberal view.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm going to need some context for those quotes. I find it highly unlikely that this quote was meant to say that the executive had some sort of power to interpret statutes over the objections of the courts. He almost certainly was talking from an expediency and good governance standpoint.
-snip-

I agree that the Exec Branch must itself interpret the law in it's everyday duties. If they stopped and asked the courts about any & all ambiguity it would paralyze government; so yes 'expediency' compells them.

However this portion of his remarks seems to belie a different and far less benign view expressed by this loon than many here seem willing to admit:

"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.

^ The quote seems clear to me.

Fern

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm going to need some context for those quotes. I find it highly unlikely that this quote was meant to say that the executive had some sort of power to interpret statutes over the objections of the courts. He almost certainly was talking from an expediency and good governance standpoint.
-snip-

I agree that the Exec Branch must itself interpret the law in it's everyday duties. If they stopped and asked the courts about any & all ambiguity it would paralyze government; so yes 'expediency' compells them.

However this portion of his remarks seems to belie a different and far less benign view expressed by this loon than many here seem willing to admit:

"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.

^ The quote seems clear to me.

Fern

basically "my buddies up here should have all power"

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm going to need some context for those quotes. I find it highly unlikely that this quote was meant to say that the executive had some sort of power to interpret statutes over the objections of the courts. He almost certainly was talking from an expediency and good governance standpoint.
-snip-

I agree that the Exec Branch must itself interpret the law in it's everyday duties. If they stopped and asked the courts about any & all ambiguity it would paralyze government; so yes 'expediency' compells them.

However this portion of his remarks seems to belie a different and far less benign view expressed by this loon than many here seem willing to admit:

"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.

^ The quote seems clear to me.

Fern

Of course it does Fern. Your remarkable ability to see nuance and grey when it came to the Bush administration has (shockingly) abandoned you when it comes to the Kenyan usurper.

Generally the way good government operates is that in the face of ambiguity the bureaucracy handles the situation because the courts are ill equipped to face the thousands (millions) of times this occurs in a given year. The courts are generally reserved for large scale constitutional issues, as they should be. (it's really the only way they could operate, as they are slow)

So you know... I actually went and read his paper and all and amazingly enough, I was right. His argument in the paper is that in everyday situations the executive branch is the one best qualified to resolve statutory ambiguities because those in the bureaucracy involved are the experts. Their judgments must be held to a standard of reasonableness, and for more important/constitutional issues even in the face of statutory ambiguity the executive does not have the right or the power to act unilaterally. It has to go ask Congress or the courts for exactly what they want it to do.

Basically he says for the every day shit we should defer to the executive. I think there's room to disagree on that topic (and I would absolutely fall more towards legislative authority than he does), but it's certainly not a 'loony' opinion in any way, shape, or form. I really wish the old Fern would come back, the guy who was willing to look at both sides, because whoever took over your keyboard isn't him.

 

[jonks]

hmm, should we read the actual essay or just take one line and trust WND and Beck had our best interests in mind....tough call.

Maybe we should look to conservatives who speak sense most of the time and see what they think. Maybe we should consider a man's distinguised decades long career.

http://www.newmajority.com/gop...ders-to-becks-mob-rule

nah, one sentence is enough for me. Hang em high!

 

[Fern]

That's a pile of (partisan) bull Eski and you know it.

He clearly says federal law should not be settled by judges, but by the President and/or his staff.

The ability to 'settle law' has always rested with the court, contrary to what Sunstein is arguing here. He's clearly arguing for the President to now do it instead of the court.

A person like Sunstein does not choose his words lightly. And I know that you know what 'settled law" means, so I'm not gonns link it for you.

BTW: A thinking person not clouded with partisanship would notice the derogatory manner in which he refers to judges settling law. (should not be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges)

Fern

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
And Bush wrote a zillion signing statements explaining how he was going to interpret and execute execute the law.

Where was your mouth then?

Slobbering Bush's knob, as usual. Under a different name, of course.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Sunstein: Obama, not courts, should interpret law

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.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110103

Hmmm. So laws should be 'settled' by the President and those under him...under the President as in Czars?

Interesting how this man now controls almost every aspect of federal government regulation now.....

Aside from starting with a story from as questionable a source as WingNut Daily, there is nothing out of the ordinary about a President acting under his authrority as he and his administration understand the applicable laws. Obama is a Constitutional attorney with a staff of qualified advisors to guide his actions. The law doesn't require him to get a note from his mommy or the Supreme Court to act within his authority.

The courts are always available to those who disagree with any given action, at which point a judge can step in to approve, overrule or reverse any actions deemed to be inconsistant with the law. That's the way our Constitutional legal system works.

Are you suggesting "activist" judges should act pre-emptively to approve or bar anything and everything Obama would do?

If so, doesn't that make you a bit of a hypocrite... yet again? :roll:

 

[Underclocked]

Sunstein is insane.

Settled.

 

[LunarRay]

The Executive Branch (aside from them Executive Orders which I figure needs no real interpretation or shouldn't) are the folks who have to interpret the Laws including the Constitution and Treaties that we sign.
The Courts are the folks who determine if the effect of the interpretation or the Statute etc. itself/themselves is within what they interpret the Constitution to mean.

So, I'd sort of agree with the Tsar. With reservations

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern
That's a pile of (partisan) bull Eski and you know it.

He clearly says federal law should not be settled by judges, but by the President and/or his staff.

The ability to 'settle law' has always rested with the court, contrary to what Sunstein is arguing here. He's clearly arguing for the President to now do it instead of the court.

A person like Sunstein does not choose his words lightly. And I know that you know what 'settled law" means, so I'm not gonns link it for you.

BTW: A thinking person not clouded with partisanship would notice the derogatory manner in which he refers to judges settling law. (should not be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges)

Fern

Why don't you actually read the paper? I linked it for you and everything.

Fern, you should think long and hard about what a 'thinking person not clouded with partisanship' is. You've quite frankly gone nuts since the election.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern
BTW: A thinking person not clouded with partisanship would notice the derogatory manner in which he refers to judges settling law. (should not be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges)

And a thorough person might have read the paragraphs immediately preceding this statement which illustrated cases in which federal judges broke down explicitly along political party lines when determining whether the president currently in office had the power to decide a certain issue, and thus drawn the conclusion that a skeptical man might actually peer at the judiciary and see some political motivation among these supposedly apolitical lifelong apointees. One might also then wonder if judges voting strictly along party lines is deserving of some rebuke for behavior pursuant to their...predispositions.

Something tells me WND/Beck's legions aren't going to be reading the entire essay for context.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Fern
BTW: A thinking person not clouded with partisanship would notice the derogatory manner in which he refers to judges settling law. (should not be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges)

And a thorough person might have read the paragraphs immediately preceding this statement which illustrated cases in which federal judges broke down explicitly along political party lines when determining whether the president currently in office had the power to decide a certain issue, and thus drawn the conclusion that a skeptical man might actually peer at the judiciary and see some political motivation among these supposedly apolitical lifelong apointees. One might also then wonder if judges voting strictly along party lines is deserving of some rebuke for behavior pursuant to their...predispositions.

Something tells me WND/Beck's legions aren't going to be reading the entire essay for context.

The funny thing is that I don't even really agree with the guy. He makes some decent points and at a minor enough level what he's arguing for is what happens every day of the week. He would probably push it to a higher level that I would no longer agree with, but he explicitly states that there are limits to how far the executive should be able to go with its interpretations, and that if it strays too far it can and should be smacked down by the other branches.

The problem here is that a whole bunch of people read a paragraph from a WND article and went crazy. If only this were the first time instead of the 50th since Obama's election, I might be more willing to ignore it. This childish shit is getting mighty tiresome.

Can't we just send them to the communist re-education and negrofication camps run by ACORN already?

 

[Moonbeam]

If chimpanzees can vote they can certainly testify in court.

 

[Fern]

This paragraph serves as a very accurate summary of the 31 page essay:

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.

See page 2582:

My major goal in this Essay is to vindicate the law-interpreting authority of
the executive branch.

That sums up pretty well where he stands. Why has he taken this stand? He doesn't like that fact that judges may lean either right or left. But doesn't a President?

Being the liberal he is, no doubt he dislikes the fact that the SCOTUS (and other courts) is not as left leaning as he would like.

That this argument for the interpretive power of President is his personal argument is emphasized throughout the essay. See end of page 2598 into beginning of page 2599 and page 2607

.that strongly supports the argument I have sketched on behalf of deference to the executive.

My general argument has been in favor of an expansive view of the
executive?s power to interpret the law.

See argument beginning page 2601 on judges political bias - this of course based on his study. This first portion below is claim of bias at the SCOTUS level:

A more recent study, based on more extensive data and conducted by
Thomas Miles and myself, offers a much more mixed picture, one that suggests
a continuing role for judicial policy judgments in overseeing executive
interpretations?a role that greatly endangers the aspirations that underlie
Chevron itself. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas were
more likely to defer to a conservative agency decision than to a liberal one;
Justices Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg were more likely to defer to a
liberal decision than to a conservative one. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices
Scalia and Thomas, taken as a group, showed a significantly higher deference
rate under the two Bush Administrations than under the Clinton
Administration. By contrast, Justices Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg
showed a significantly higher deference rate under President Clinton than
under the two Bush Administrations. (Interestingly, the deference rate of the
latter four Justices, taken as a whole, was higher under the two Bush
Administrations than the deference rate of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices
Scalia and Thomas, taken as a whole, in the same periods; but the largest
difference was found under the Clinton Administration, when the deference
rates of the three conservative Justices plummeted and those of the four others
increased.) These figures reveal that within the Supreme Court, the political
commitments of the Justices continue to play a substantial role in review of
agency interpretations of law.

Here he argues the bias of lower courts:

Among the lower courts, we investigated all published court of appeals
decisions between 1990 and 2004, reviewing interpretations of law by the EPA
and the NLRB. We found that Democratic appointees were more likely to
uphold an interpretation under a Democratic administration than under a
Republican one; and that Republican appointees were more likely to uphold an
agency interpretation under a Republican administration than under a
Democratic one. Republican appointees upheld liberal interpretations less
often than conservative ones; Democratic appointees voted to uphold liberal
agency interpretations more often than conservative ones. Perhaps most
disturbingly, a Democratic appointee, sitting with two other Democratic
appointees, was far more likely to vote to uphold a liberal decision than a
conservative one?and a Republican appointee, sitting with two other
Republican appointees, was far more likely to vote to uphold a conservative
decision than a liberal one.

(His summary on the bias of the judicial branch/courts)
It is clear that even under Chevron, the political commitments of reviewing
judges continue to play a significant role in the decision whether to uphold
interpretations by the executive branch?and differences between Republican
and Democratic appointees suggest that policy disagreements are a key factor.
This evidence greatly fortifies the argument for a strong reading of Chevron.
There is no reason to think that the meaning of ambiguous statutes should
depend on the composition of the panel that litigants draw, or on whether a
Republican or Democratic President has appointed the majority on the
Supreme Court.

A description of the Presidential power he argues for, and it's narrow limitation:

Second, it is entirely legitimate for the executive to make ?major?
changes insofar as it is doing so through reasonable interpretation of genuinely
ambiguous statutes.(page 2607)

In general, the executive is permitted to interpret ambiguous statutes as it sees fit, subject to the
constraints of reasonableness (page 2609, last sentence)

The only limitations are found in the
nondelegation canons. (page 2610)

As to the nondelegation canons, this applies if the statute is ambiguous and the Constitutional question is sensitive.

But who decides when that limitation applies? The President? He doesn't say

Thus I suspect this is one area where he throws a 'bone' to the court. They may interfere only here - at least according to his view.

Nope, fellows this goes far beyond some practical and necessary discretion to run the day-to-day affairs. You see judges are biased and we must defer to the President allowing him broad scope to interpret as (s)he sees fit. A very handy 'end around' if stuck with courts you don't like.

Much of his argument, although well worded, is contrived and somewhat contradictory. I.e., we can't trust judges to weigh in on "major changes" because of their bias; however, we can look to them for even more serious issue of Constitutional sensitivities? Or, in describing the cannons of delegation he argues that to defer to the courts for interpretations is itself a forbidden delegation. WTF? Try to square that with one of the fundamental roles of the courts in interpreting statute.

Fern

 

[Sedition]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Some of 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.
===========

The fucker must be totally insane.

He is... none of those are rights. In america, you have the right to use your natural born talents and drive to create a life where those things are possible but you don't have a right to them just because you were born here. If you had a right to those things and were incapable of acquiring them, someone would have to give them to you. That's called socialism. If that's what you want, move to Canuckistan or England. They'll be happy to care for you from cradle to grave. But there has to be a place on this planet where you're allowed to succeed to your ultimate poteintial without penalty or FAIL based on your own merrits.

And these ideas by people like you are the main reason we are falling behind as a nation. The sad fact is that the long held belief that parents know best for their children is fucking stupid. They don't. They are winging it. Hence, we need great education for our kids.

Big business doesn't give a fuck about our nation. If it made them a few more dollars and allowed them pure unregulated they'd b-line it straight to North Korea and start singing praises of the almighty Kim. Hence we need regulated business that will maintain jobs in our country for our people.

Stop thinking that every idea a democrat has to make this country better is somehow a socialist plot to kill our grandparents. It is paranoid and ridiculous. I am sick of these hypocrites in our country. Admit that you only have a problem with these statements when they come from the vocal folds of a democrat. That way we can ignore you and start advancing this country.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Calling into question the legitimacy of all the signing statements that former President George W. Bush used to challenge new laws, President Obama ordered executive officials on Monday to consult with Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. before relying on any of them to bypass a statute.

But Mr. Obama also signaled that he intended to use signing statements himself if Congress sent him legislation with provisions he decided were unconstitutional. He promised to take a modest approach when using the statements, legal documents issued by a president the day he signs bills into law that instruct executive officials how to put the statutes into effect. But Mr. Obama said there was a role for the practice if used appropriately.

?In exercising my responsibility to determine whether a provision of an enrolled bill is unconstitutional, I will act with caution and restraint, based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well-founded,? Mr. Obama wrote in a memorandum to the heads of all departments and agencies in the executive branch.

Mr. Obama?s directions were the latest step in his administration?s effort to deal with a series of legal and policy disputes it inherited from the Bush administration.

So he's doing exactly what everyone was upset about Bush doing. Change we can believe in!

c o n t e x t and reading comprehension are not your strengths, are they?
(and next time read the link)

... Mr. Bush, who broke all records, using signing statements to challenge about 1,200 sections of bills over his eight years in office, about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined ...

In his memorandum, Mr. Obama wrote, ?Particularly since omnibus bills have become prevalent, signing statements have often been used to ensure that concerns about the constitutionality of discrete statutory provisions do not require a veto of the entire legislation.? ...

?To ensure that all signing statements previously issued are followed only when consistent with these principles,? he wrote, ?executive branch departments and agencies are directed to seek the advice of the attorney general before relying on signing statements issued prior to the date of this memorandum

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Calling into question the legitimacy of all the signing statements that former President George W. Bush used to challenge new laws, President Obama ordered executive officials on Monday to consult with Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. before relying on any of them to bypass a statute.

But Mr. Obama also signaled that he intended to use signing statements himself if Congress sent him legislation with provisions he decided were unconstitutional. He promised to take a modest approach when using the statements, legal documents issued by a president the day he signs bills into law that instruct executive officials how to put the statutes into effect. But Mr. Obama said there was a role for the practice if used appropriately.

?In exercising my responsibility to determine whether a provision of an enrolled bill is unconstitutional, I will act with caution and restraint, based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well-founded,? Mr. Obama wrote in a memorandum to the heads of all departments and agencies in the executive branch.

Mr. Obama?s directions were the latest step in his administration?s effort to deal with a series of legal and policy disputes it inherited from the Bush administration.

So he's doing exactly what everyone was upset about Bush doing. Change we can believe in!

Right, reading a bill and knowing what it is about, what Bush was so do didlinggood at. LOL!!

 

[fskimospy]

Fern, if you read the journal entry you did a poor job of it. Many of your objections are directly addressed in it. (like the preference for presidential action over judicial and why he would argue to rely on the judicial branch for constitutional questions but not on statutory ambiguity) I imagine you just quote mined it for things that you thought supported your position.

The summary is not a 'very accurate' one, as it completely ignores the restrictions he states are placed upon executive power and gives the impression he doesn't think there should be any. So no, it's a shit summary.

Most of your post is irrelevant. Why the large quotes on his perceptions of bias in the judiciary? Whether that's true or not has no bearing on this discussion... were you just finding things you didn't like and posting them for us?

Finally, your huge scandal that you have unearthed is that he thinks in the case of ambiguous statutes that the executive branch should be given deference by the judiciary if the executive's interpretation is reasonable. And for that piece of thinking, you've branded him a 'loon'. Sorry if I'm not exactly bowled over by your incredible scoop here.

Let's be honest here, you read the headline and your Obama-dar went off again and so you got all worked up before you even knew what you were talking about. Now you're getting annoyed that I keep calling you out on your birther-dom and your abandonment of reasonable argument since the election, so you're going to fight me on something as silly as this.

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Some of 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.
===========

The fucker must be totally insane.

He is... none of those are rights. In america, you have the right to use your natural born talents and drive to create a life where those things are possible but you don't have a right to them just because you were born here. If you had a right to those things and were incapable of acquiring them, someone would have to give them to you. That's called socialism. If that's what you want, move to Canuckistan or England. They'll be happy to care for you from cradle to grave. But there has to be a place on this planet where you're allowed to succeed to your ultimate poteintial without penalty or FAIL based on your own merrits.

Jesus, what a sociopath. Do I have a right to withhold any of my money going into your Social Security? Because I sure was fuck don't want to get in the way of you reaching your "ultimate potential." I also don't want to fund any road you drive on, pay any cop or fireman you call, or support any school your children attend.

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Fern, if you read the journal entry you did a poor job of it. Many of your objections are directly addressed in it. (like the preference for presidential action over judicial and why he would argue to rely on the judicial branch for constitutional questions but not on statutory ambiguity) I imagine you just quote mined it for things that you thought supported your position.

The summary is not a 'very accurate' one, as it completely ignores the restrictions he states are placed upon executive power and gives the impression he doesn't think there should be any. So no, it's a shit summary.

Most of your post is irrelevant. Why the large quotes on his perceptions of bias in the judiciary? Whether that's true or not has no bearing on this discussion... were you just finding things you didn't like and posting them for us?

Finally, your huge scandal that you have unearthed is that he thinks in the case of ambiguous statutes that the executive branch should be given deference by the judiciary if the executive's interpretation is reasonable. And for that piece of thinking, you've branded him a 'loon'. Sorry if I'm not exactly bowled over by your incredible scoop here.

Let's be honest here, you read the headline and your Obama-dar went off again and so you got all worked up before you even knew what you were talking about. Now you're getting annoyed that I keep calling you out on your birther-dom and your abandonment of reasonable argument since the election, so you're going to fight me on something as silly as this.

It's narcissism He can't admit he's wrong, and everything he likes is the best, because if any of it were discovered to be wrong... then... then...

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Some of 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.
===========

The fucker must be totally insane.

He is... none of those are rights. In america, you have the right to use your natural born talents and drive to create a life where those things are possible but you don't have a right to them just because you were born here. If you had a right to those things and were incapable of acquiring them, someone would have to give them to you. That's called socialism. If that's what you want, move to Canuckistan or England. They'll be happy to care for you from cradle to grave. But there has to be a place on this planet where you're allowed to succeed to your ultimate poteintial without penalty or FAIL based on your own merrits.

Jesus, what a sociopath. Do I have a right to withhold any of my money going into your Social Security? Because I sure was fuck don't want to get in the way of you reaching your "ultimate potential." I also don't want to fund any road you drive on, pay any cop or fireman you call, or support any school your children attend.

:roll:

Reading comprehension isn't your strong point is it?

I said nothing of roads and cops and basic necessary social services. You apprently have extrapolated what I said into some kind of sick world where we should never pay a dime in tax or a dime in tax that does't directly benefit ME as a tax payer.

Please.

Taxes are a necessary part of a modern civilized society that wishes to maintain national security, personal security and infrastructure needed to maintain our high standard of living.

Please read again...

A job is not a right. Everyone wants you to have one. We're all happy when you are able to support you and yours but you don't have a right to one. If you smoke meth and eat your boogers, you probably aren't very hirable.

Farmers participate in the free market like everyone else. For that matter, the concept of a small family farmer hardly exists anymore anyway. Farming is, and has been for quite some time, a large, corporate commercial enterprise.

Freeing the marketplace from monopolies is a good thing. I've never argued for them. Then again, I don't need to defend this point of view because you never said anything about it.

The decent home thing kind of follows part and parcel with the job thing. You don't have a right to a 'decent' house. For that matter, what is the definition of decent? One man's castle is another man's cat box. Regardless, per my original point, if you are incapable of providing such for yourself then you have to demand as much from others, thus depriving them of their personal rewards for having been able to succeed where you have failed. How is that fair?

There is no right to health care. Again, this all falls back to your ability to make yourself marketable in the employment arena. See above. Where you are incapable of providing a 'right' for yourself, others have to pay against their will.

America works on the principle of:

Life... and all the various protections thereof. The knoweledge that we all live by the same rules and that those who try to violate your right to life will be subject to applicable laws. That the society we live in will pitch in to protect our lives from those who seek to end them. (requires taxes, military, cops, fire, EMTs... etc) This also includes the right to defend our lives from those who would seek to harm or kill us.

Liberty... the ability to state your mind on any subject and move freely anywhere you please so long as that movement doesn't impinge on somoene else's rights... commercial, intellectual, property or proprietary. Also the right to be free until it is proven that we have violated a law, the violation of which results in our loss of liberty.

The Pursuit of Happiness... This is where many of you get lost. We'd all love to live in a big house, drive a nice car and send our kids to Harvard. But not all of us will. That said, we all have the right to work within our social system to try and make this happen for ourselves. The bitter among us will say that this concept is a fairy tale but the reality is that 80% of all millionaires in this country (and there are more than you think - Estimates range from 1-5 out of 100 people are millionaires in the US) are first generation rich. They didn't inherit the money and most are not rock stars or pro atheletes. How is one to achieve their goals if the government is taking 30, 40, 50% or more of what they make, mostly to give to someone else who can't?

In then end, you should be allowed to succeed to your potential. We are moving in the opposite direction here and look at what it's doing to us.