PDA

View Full Version : fer you hunters... Obama again..



Rattus58
07-22-2009, 02:18 AM
Obama Regulatory Czar's Confirmation Held Up by Hunting Rights Proponent
Cass Sunstein's views on litigating on behalf of animals has raised concerns for Sen. John Cornyn, who placed a hold on the nominee until he gets a chance to hear his views one-on-one.
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

FOXNews.com

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

WASHINGTON -- President Obama's nominee for "regulatory czar" has hit a new snag in his Senate confirmation process -- a "hold" by Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who's says he's not convinced that Harvard professor Cass Sunstein won't push a radical animal rights agenda, including new restrictions on agriculture and even hunting.

Senators are permitted "holds" to prevent a vote on a nominee from coming to the floor. They are often secretive and for very specific reasons.

"Sen. Cornyn finds numerous aspects of Mr. Sunstein's record troubling, specifically the fact that he wants to establish legal 'rights' for livestock, wildlife and pets, which would enable animals to file lawsuits in American courts," the Republican's spokesman, Kevin McLaughlin, said in a statement to FOXNews.com.

Cornyn's hold on Sunstein comes just as Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., last week lifted his own hold on the nominee, whom Obama tapped in April to become the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Budget and Management.

Chambliss said he was dropping his hold because Sunstein had convinced him that he "would not take any steps to promote litigation on behalf of animals," and that he believes the "Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess guns for purposes of both hunting and self defense."

Both statements were included in a letter Sunstein sent to Chambliss on July 14.

Chambliss added in a Senate floor speech last Wednesday that "Professor Sunstein comes highly recommended by a number of folks from the conservative side of the philosophical divide in this country."

One of Sunstein's top jobs would be to review and provide guidance for draft federal regulations at different federal agencies. It is a wide-ranging and largely unrestrained position in the executive branch.

That's a large part of the reason Sunstein's positions on animal rights have become worrisome to his critics. Despite his assurances to the contrary, Sunstein has spoken stridently in favor of allowing people the right to bring suit on behalf of animals in animal cruelty cases and to restrict what he calls the more horrific practices associated with industrial breeding and processing of animals for food.

In a 2007 speech at Harvard, Sunstein also advocated restricting animal testing for cosmetics, banning hunting and encouraging the general public to eat less meat.

The Center for Consumer Rights' David Martosko, a Sunstein critic, said those positions make the agricultural industry -- major stakeholders in the states represented by both Chambliss and Cornyn -- nervous.

Martosko said there are plenty of ways to pursue a "stealth campaign" on any one of these fronts -- guns or animal rights -- by putting pressure on the regulatory heads of the different agencies.

"He is the gatekeeper between the president and the secretaries," he said, noting that "as a regulatory czar, he won't be a judge or a legislator, so he cannot make laws. ... What he can do is nudge the departments in the direction of his philosophy," which is very much in line with "hard core animal rights zealots."

But Sunstein, who is married to National Security Council Director of Multilateral Affairs Samantha Power, has earned widely varied reviews among the political left and right, and from some of the unlikeliest of quarters.

"We still don't know much about how Barack Obama plans to overhaul our financial regulatory system, but his reported appointment of Cass Sunstein to an important post is a promising sign," Wall Street Journal editors wrote in January, when Sunstein's possible nomination was being floated.

The paper's editors said they were cheered by Sunstein's long-held beliefs in using cost-benefit analysis in regulation -- a concept that worries proponents of greater and tighter regulations.

"We have concerns about some of his academic writings regarding his approach to regulatory policy and regulatory review," Bill Samuel, AFL-CIO legislative director, told The Chicago Tribune. "We want to hear more from him about how he intends to approach regulatory policy."

Environmentalists also say Sunstein's nomination is a potential blow to their efforts to roll back what they call Bush-era deregulation. Frank O'Donnell, director of Clean Water Watch, wrote that "progressives would've screamed" if President Bush had nominated someone with similar views for the OIRA post." In fact, Bush did, O'Donnell noted, much to the chagrin of progressives.

Adding to animal rights and cost-benefit analysis is concern over Sunstein's positions on freedom of speech.

News of Sunstein's latest book, "On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done," lit up the blogosphere last week when The New York Post ran a column by a reviewer who received an advance copy.

Writer Kyle Smith suggested Sunstein threatens to tweak libel laws for the Internet and make online writers, particularly bloggers, legally responsible for falsehoods and rumors that get generated in cyberspace.

"Sunstein calls for a 'notice and take down' law that would require bloggers and service providers to 'take down falsehoods upon notice,' even those made by commenters -- but without apparent penalty," Smith wrote. "How long would it take for a court to sort out the truth? (Presidential daughters) Sasha and Malia will be running for president by then. Nobody will care anymore. But it will give politicians the ability to tie up their online critics in court."

Sunstein, a prolific writer who has penned 35 books since 1990, has plowed the issue of rumors and how they are spread, and leaves much of the policy debate in the air.

For instance, in a paper titled, "'She Said What?' 'He Did That?' Believing False Rumors," for Harvard Law School in November 2008, Sunstein wrote: "In discussions of possible restrictions on free speech, it is standard to speak of, and to deplore, the 'chilling effect' that is created by the prospect of civil or criminal sanctions."

"Libel law, for example, might chill speech about public figures and public issues, in a way that could damage democratic debate. And if there is a 'marketplace of ideas,' we should be especially concerned about the risk of chilling effect because it will undermine processes that will ultimately produce the truth," he wrote.

Sunstein, who once taught alongside Obama at the University of Chicago Law School, did not return an interview request from FOXNews.com.

But being taken for both a liberal activist and a free market cheerleader makes the nominee a true "wild card," observers say.

John Lott, conservative author of "The Bias Against Guns and Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works," called Sunstein "open minded" and a "true academic," but also warned that in its opposition, the left might be looking a gift horse in the mouth.

"My guess is that these progressives are unlikely to find anyone who could champion many of their views as well as Cass can."

Tom Firey, managing editor of the Cato Institute's Regulation magazine, said, "Sunstein really doesn't fit readily, politically or ideologically, in any box.

"I think this is going to be a very interesting nomination to watch on Capitol Hill. He's going to be getting some shots from the right and from the left. You are never going to make anyone who is a stakeholder in these debates happy," he said.

Cornyn's spokesman said the senator will be happy when he gets direct assurances from Sunstein that he will not pursue an agenda akin to some of his past writings, particularly on the animal rights issue.

"Sen. Cornyn hasn't had a chance to speak with him yet, that's the reason for the hold," said McLaughlin. "He wants to have a chance to before moving forward."

captchee
07-22-2009, 08:51 AM
personally i dont trust any of them . if people dont stand up here this next fall and aboot them out of office. thus effectively neutering obama . then people get what they get .

those of us against this should then stand up . push very strong state rights . IE enforce our soverenity .
Basically drawing a line saying , YOU WILL NOT PASS

captchee
07-22-2009, 09:00 AM
personally i dont trust any of them . if people dont stand up here this next fall and aboot them out of office. thus effectively neutering obama . then people get what they get .

those of us against this should then stand up . push very strong state rights . IE enforce our soverenity .
Basically drawing a line saying , YOU WILL NOT PASS






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEAPONS OF CHOICE
Washington drops hammer on state gun plan
'As you may know, federal law … supersedes the act'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 21, 2009
9:14 pm Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Federal gun regulators have written to gun dealers around Tennessee, dropping the hammer on a new state law that exempts weapons made, sold and used inside the state from interstate regulations.

The letter, dated just days ago, was distributed to holders of Federal Firearms Licenses.

In it, Carson W. Carroll, the assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told dealers the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, adopted this year, "purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the state, and which remain in the state, from most federal firearms laws and regulations."

The exemption is not right, the federal agency letter contends.


"As you may know, federal law requires a license to engage in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition, or to deal in firearms, even if the firearms or ammunition remain with the same state," the letter said. "All firearms manufactured by a licensee must be properly marked. Additionally, each licensee must record the type, model, caliber or gauge, and serial number of each firearm manufactured or otherwise acquired, and the date such manufacture or other acquisition was made.

"These, as well as other federal requirements and prohibitions, apply whether or not the firearms or ammunition have crossed state lines," the letter said.

Get "Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defense" and learn why you have a responsibility to be armed.

The law was adopted by the state Legislature this year. It provides that "federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in Tennessee and remains in Tennessee." It also carries exemptions for certain types of weapons and ammunition and the requirement that all firearms made or sold in the state have "Made in Tennessee" on them.

Tennessee is not the first state to move in this direction.
Montana's bill provides that guns, ammo, accessories, silencers and other products made, sold and used in the state would not require any federal documentation, registration, serial numbers, records check or waiting period.

The pushback from the states comes at a time when the federal administration is replete with anti-gun activists in influential positions, including an attorney general, Eric Holder, who supported a complete handgun ban in the District of Columbia before it was tossed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Obama administration has even pushed for a treaty that would require sportsmen who reload their ammunition to obtain a federal license.

The Montana plan cites the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that "guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889."

"The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889," the Montana plan states.

"The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States Constitution, particularly if not expressly pre-empted by federal law. Congress has not expressly pre-empted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition," it says.

Further, state lawmakers cite the Second Amendment right of the people to "keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889."

The Tennessee plan includes many of the same arguments.

The Tennessee Gun Owners website includes this comment: "And the battle begins. I don't believe this was unexpected. According to the 10th Amendment, the state has authority. Tennessee is applying its constitutional rights. The feds are saying, no, the Constitution doesn't count. Calling all lawyers!"

In Montana, a Democrat governor signed the gun exemption law; in Tennessee, a Democrat governor allowed the gun exemptions to become law without his signature.

At Resistnet.com, there was a discussion among hundreds of members who have stated their willingness to bring a lawsuit against the federal government over the issue.

"The sovereign state of Tennessee should stand her ground. If people would stand up to the bully (Big Brother) we might take back some of the rights that have been stolen from us. It will not be comfortable. It will not be easy. But, it can be done, if we want it bad enough," said one participant.

One other was a little less eloquent, but his message came through.

"This is a crock! This is a free state and it's time to tell the thieves in Washington to butt out."

The weapons definitions are part of a general move on the part of states – Alaska being the most recent – to simply declare their sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.

About three dozen states have begun working on such plans.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin signed House Joint Resolution just days ago. It "claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States."

The joint resolution does not carry the force of law, but supporters say it is a significant move toward getting their message out to other lawmakers, the media and grassroots movements.

While seven states – Tennessee, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska and Louisiana – have had both houses of their legislatures pass similar decrees, Palin signed Alaska's Tenth Amendment declaration and Tennessee's governor signed that state's Tenth Amendment declaration of sovereignty.

ncboman
07-22-2009, 09:42 AM
personally i dont trust any of them . if people dont stand up here this next fall and aboot them out of office. thus effectively neutering obama . then people get what they get .

those of us against this should then stand up . push very strong state rights . IE enforce our soverenity .
Basically drawing a line saying , YOU WILL NOT PASS

+1

Crockettnj
12-29-2009, 02:32 PM
+1, I agree, we must push for stronger states rights and more local control. However, as sad as it is for me to say, I truely think we are witnessing the slow swan song for the USA as we know it. There is just FAR too much power in the hands off far too few, and the theme is a steady drum beat of socialist one World Gov. Cripes, I sound like a looney typing that, and I think thats part of the brilliance of it... the truth and the facts are so ridiculous, most people dont see it for what it is. Forest from the trees and all that.

No, i get around and see and hear a lot of people. I tell you, I really do think this is the slide to the end guys. There are just MILLIONs who want a handout at all costs, and who vote like its a reality show.

And its not just the lefty looney's. Bush's 2nd term was a a slap in the face and a kick in the nuts for any Republican who for a second thought their party was conservative. I want to vomit saying this, but in the end it looks as if Kerry or Gore wouldnt have been much worse.

I am sad for my kids.