'Emperor' Obama Should Interpret Law Not Courts

[AAjax]

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.....

Ah, law by decree and not consent. Under Bush it was tyrany, it is no different under Obama.

 

[Fern]

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.

You continue to approach this as though he were arguing nothing substantial.

Obviously he himself feels quite differently. Common sense should tell one that the man didn't feel compelled to generate 31 pages for nothing but the status qou. No, he himself is clearly telling us that he argues for more expansive power for the President.

Why the large quotes about his claim of partisan bias in the Judiciary? Up til now you've been arguing his basis for this expansion of Presidential power is purely pragmatic. Sunstein hiself devoted extensive time justifying this expansion because of judicial bias. Yet you, after remarking several times of actually reading it, have somehow omitted this as though it were non-existant.

The restiction he argues for is indeed very narrow. In short he wishes to deprive us of relief by the courts except in the most extreme of circumstances.

Presently, there is nothing that says the Exec Branch cannot go about it's daily activity of interpreting vauge statutes in the performance of it's duties.
---------------------------------

As to continued references to me as 'birther', I've made clear that they are on the wrong path. They believe the published "birth certificate' is fraudulent.

I, OTOH, do not believe it's forged or anything of the like. No, my point is in a different direction.

However, unlike many of you here, I know that it's not a birth certificate. Hawaii itself says it's not a birth certificate. I'm amused to see people like Chris Matthews hold a copy of it up in the air and labeling it as a BC.

A BC is issued at the time of birth (normally, and I'll get to that later). The document published on the 'net lists a revision date of 2007 (lower left-hand corner IIRC) for the form. So no, it's obvioulsy not a BC.

Rather the certificate published is generated by the HI government at the request of the individual and includes as much, or as little information from the (original) BC as that person requests.

Now as then, HI has several types of BC's. (IIRC there has been a change in the Foreign Born BC, but that is irrelevent). One such BC is called, (IIRC) a Delayed BC.

One of the principal characteristics of a Delayed BC is a delay between the time of birth and the issuance of a BC. A qucik glance at the document provided by Obama shows a delay of several days between his birth and the issuance of his BC; 3 or more days IIRC.

Another charcteristic, or requirement, of a Delayed BC is that the birth did NOT occur in a hospital, nor was it attended by a mid-wife (had it been in a hospital etc the BC would be issued immediately as the normal course of business).

So yes, I would like to see his original BC. I would find it quite interesting if indeed he had a Delayed BC. In discussions about this topic I have seen the term "cognitive dissonance" tossed about. Well, I'd like to see it explained how his mother, a white woman from the Mid-West (as opposed to some HI native woman in a remote region), would be so extremely unconventional as to have given birth outside of any hospital without causing a severe case of cognitive dissonance. I contend it would require an incredible 'willful suspention of disbelief'.

Of course, it has already been stated he was born in the local hospital. So, needless to say it would be extremely awkward to have to explain this obvious contradiction.

So, I'm not a 'birther'; I'm a 'Delayed BC-er' (please do try and get that right in the future). And the HI governor's order to seal his BC from the public doesn't dampen my interest in the least.

The information above (except for any possible explanation of the delay betwen his birth and issuance of his BC) is easily found on the HI government's site. Too bad the Obama fans and people in the MSM can't seem to use google. Maybe one day someone will email, oh say Glenn Beck with this info just for sh!ts and giggles and see what hapens (if anything). I can just see the chain emails.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Fern, nothing in your long extended attempt to excuse your insane position on Obama's birth makes you any less of a birther. A birther is someone who doesn't think that Obama was born in the US, and it's pretty clear by your repeated defenses of complete batshit insanity that you fit right in with them. It's pretty amazing that you're able to try and paint your refusal to believe the certification of birth verified by countless official authorities of both parties as the 'rational' response.

I like how the state director of health personally certifying that she has seen his original birth certificate with her own two eyes isn't good enough for you. You again are showing a remarkable ability to swallow falsehoods that appeal to you. Obama's birth certificate was not 'sealed' by the Republican governor, ALL birth records are sealed all the time in accordance with Hawaii state law. This is nothing new.

You also appear to be making an elementary mistake about how birth records are dealt with. The date on Obama's birth certificate that is different than his birthday is one that is 4 days later, and that's the date it was entered into the registry. A delayed birth certificate would most certainly NOT be registered 4 days later, as in order to apply for one of those you need to provide significant documentary evidence to the Hawaii DOH that is then evaluated by an administrative or judicial body to determine if it meets their standards of evidence. This evidence is also permanently kept on file. Births are frequently entered into the registry several days after they occur in order to deal with document processing. Regardless, you absolutely do not get a state birth certificate the day you are born, and a delay of 4 days is/was extremely common. (frequently it was longer).

It's funny how you say that all this information is easily available, and yet you still managed to get so much of it wrong. (this explains a lot)

 

[Fern]

I got my son's BC before we even left the Hospital.

Since the Delayed BC is an official HI BC the fact officials 'testify' his BC is an offical one is meaningless in this context..

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern
I got my son's BC before we even left the Hospital.

Since the Delayed BC is an official HI BC the fact officials 'testify' his BC is an offical one is meaningless in this context..

Fern

My parents didn't get my birth certificate the day I was born, and that was in 1980, much less 1961.

Regardless, the state director of health said that there was a birth certificate in their records, not a 'certificate of delayed birth'. You're just desperately looking for the tiniest crack that you can still insert your theory into no matter how implausible it is. Conspiracy theories can never be disproven though, because as we've been able to amply demonstrate with the birthers, additional evidence only equates to a larger conspiracy.

The sources that are providing you this 'delayed birth' information are probably the same ones that told you the lie that Hawaii's governor 'sealed' his records or some nonsense. Might this start to call their analysis into question?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern

I got my son's BC before we even left the Hospital.

Since the Delayed BC is an official HI BC the fact officials 'testify' his BC is an offical one is meaningless in this context..

Give it a fucking rest. You only embarrass yourself. :roll:

 

[thraashman]

How about we not turn one troll thread into a troll thread on another topic. This thread is not about birther or whatnot. This thread is about an assessment of one of this administration's czars that the Executive branch interprets laws. Which is technically true. It is officially the job of the office of the Executive to interpret the laws passed by Congress and to enforce them. The judiciary branch has the job of interpretting the Constitution and as such can override the interpretations of law by the office of the Executive by declaring the law or the interpretations as such as unconstitutional. The problem with the Bush presidency was that he used signing statements to try to completely change the meaning behind a law and was effectively trying to give himself a version of line item veto, which has itself been ruled unconstitutional.

 

[shira]

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

The reality is that Administrations do exactly what is in the quotation, and those opposed to the Administration's views go to the federal courts, which have the final say.

In practical terms, there's really no alternative to this "tension" between the Executive and Judicial branches of government: If legistation appears to leave an opening, what SHOULD an administration do? Naturally, they act in accordance with what they BELIEVE the law allows. Since courts don't typically exercise prior restraint when it comes to the prerogatives of the Executive branch, it can take several years for the final "interpretaion" to be defined. Think the Bush Administration and the rights of detainees.

This quote just makes explicit how EVERY Administration acts.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: umbrella39
(re)Ban the OP

great idea! cencorship on P&N lets start banning those that have a diffrent political stand!

Straw man, it's not about a 'different stand' that adds to the disccusion.

while the OP a hack there is no reason to ban. people bitched out Bush for such stuff

Bush was criticized for *abusing* signing statements - using them in a new way to enact the radical right's 'unitary presidency' theory that he can tell Congress to screw themselves. That's far different than the normal, far more infrequent far more restrained normal use of them for a President to express his intererpretation of them, or his concerns the law might be unconstitutional within *normal* judicial theory.