Hunters and gun rights activists are lining up against the nomination of Harvard Law School Professor Cass Sunstein as Barack Obama’s “regulatory czar” as a vote on the nomination is supposed to be coming up this week.
Sunstein’s official job would be to run the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and a 65-35 Senate vote Wednesday evening to end the debate over his nomination pushed him closer to the job, according to Politico.com. All that remains is a full Senate vote, perhaps today.
My colleagues John Van Ness, the Baltimore Hunting and Fishing Examiner, and Kevin Rought, the Grand Rapids Hunting Examiner, are decidedly against Sunstein’s nomination.
The Washington Times editorialized against Sunstein specifically on Second Amendment grounds, and Coppin State University Prof. Victor Morawski, a Liberty Features syndicated writer, authored an Op-Ed piece detailing his concerns about Sunstein in the Anderson Valley Post.
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. - Cass Sunstein
On the heels of the Van Jones debacle – which ended rather shabbily at just after midnight Sunday when nobody was looking – it appears Round Two may be unfolding today as the Senate is expected to take up Sunstein’s nomination.
Obama is in trouble with health care “reform” despite his numbers following Wednesday’s speech before Congress, and nominating Far Left extremists to positions of authority in his administration is raising serious concerns among many American citizens who voted for him 11 months ago that instead of a president they elected a putz.
Sunstein is an animal rights extremist who has advocated a ban on hunting, and suggested making it possible for lawsuits to be filed on behalf of domestic animals. He’s argued that the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment may be a contemporary invention, yet he recently insisted that he firmly believes in the individual right to bear arms. He did write a rather thoughtful, though lengthy and at times confusing, analysis of the Heller decision for the Harvard Law Review that challenges both sides of the gun rights debate. However, he seems to fail miserably on understanding the Second Amendment. As the Washington Times editorial recalled, he sent a letter to Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia in July that stated, “I strongly believe that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess and use guns for purposes of both hunting and self-defense,” and then adds, “If confirmed, I would respect the Second Amendment and the individual right that it recognizes.”
Well, which is it? Does the Second Amendment “create” an individual right, or “recognize” it? (I know the answer to that question and so should you, while Sunstein evidently has conflicting thoughts.)
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."
Sunstein has his defenders, including Julian Sanchez, who argued that his remarks are being taken out of context or are deliberately misrepresented. He also has in his corner popular pro-gun blogger Eugene Volokh, and Glenn Harlan Reynolds, who is hardly an advocate for banning guns.
In an opinion piece Sunstein authored for the Boston Globe on June 27, 2008, he wrote, “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.” There he goes with that “creation” thing again, and he clearly misrepresents what the high court ruling stated.
Later in the same piece, Sunstein observed, “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’.”
I don’t know, Cass. That seems pretty clear to me, and a lot of other people. And you still don’t get it about the Second Amendment.
My coming view is that the individual right to bear arms reflects the success of an extremely aggressive and resourceful social movement and has much less to do with good standard legal arguments than [it] appears."
Americans voted for Obama last fall because they thought the country needed a change. Yet in the aftermath, by rushing to gun shops and gun shows, they clearly demonstrated with their wallets that they don’t think the country needs to abandon the Second Amendment.
Right now, Americans are arguing over whether we need to dramatically change the health care system. Next year, if things keep going as they are, American voters are likely to decide we need to change the face of Congress, as we did in 1994.
In the final analysis, America doesn’t need a Far Left drift, socially or politically; the kind of drift that Jones certainly exemplified and that Sunstein seems to embody as well.
By drawing such individuals to his administration, Barack Obama is sending a crystal clear signal about just how far left – and out of the mainstream – his philosophy tilts.
Visit with other Gun Rights Examiners:
And Don’t forget to visit:
Comments
Politicians and diapers both require frequent changing for the EXACT same reason.
Writing regulatory mandates for government agencies to enforce is a lot easier than going public to try and change existing laws. Think of the regulatory authority he will have over at EPA, FDA, BLM, etc., on the negative effects of lead in the environment. Think also about the potential terror threat that needs tighter regulation from people buying gun powder and primers, et al. The DC mantra... if you can't outright outlaw something then over control it through regulations.
How about Jim Jones? How about Robert Gates? How about the endorsement of Colin Powell? How about Obama's praise for John McCain? What are these things indicative of?
Perhaps its a surprise to you, but there are people from all across the political spectrum in this country, and there are also people from across the political spectrum in the Obama administration. If you have a problem with that, you clearly have a problem with representative government.
But by all means, please continue your pointless witchhunt.
I voted for Obama, but expected that the "change" would be to a different wing of the oligarchy. Sometimes, I hate it when I'm right. Check out how federal administrative law works. One's avenues are circumscribed. We are now up to about 40 "Tsars" who do not require senatorial confirmation.
“A well-regulated village being necessary to the security of a free tribe, the right of tribal members to keep and bear rocks, slings, knives, spears, bows and arrows shall not be infringed.”
“The difference between a thousand prostitutes and a thousand lawyers is in the likelihood of finding a few prostitutes in the group who have at least some idea of what constitutes moral behavior.”
Subjective Observer
The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States December 15, 1791
PREAMBLE Congress OF THE United States.
"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.."
Amendment II "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."
[archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html]
A Declaration of the preexisting RKBA?
A restrictive clause to prevent misconstruction or abuse of powers of the new Federal government?
Anyone really expect a lawyer to recognize a law when he sees it knowing they make their living finding loopholes?
Cass Sunstein needs his head examined if there was a psych ward deadicated to him they should also throw in nancy pelosi in there as well and the whole GD administration. i was a young buck when clinton corruption took place. these tea parties are just the start we are the sleeping giant that this administration does not whant us to be well they asked for it and they are going to get it. It states in federal law under 5 U.S.C. 3331 I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. This oath is mandated by Article VI of the Constitution and its text is set by statute. so uphold the constitution or we will throw you out of office. DONT TREAD ON ME
All Members of Congress should be given a copy of the U.S. Constitution, and be required to cite the amendment or section
that gives the members to right to proprose a bill or amendment to a bill. All bills should not to be allowed to be amended, unless the amendment is related to the orginal bill.
As a proud liberal who believes solidly in gun rights and the Second Amendment (which I firmly believe is a philosophically liberal issue - feel free to check me on this) , I can't help but find you article less than convincing. It's very difficult to determine what anyone will do once in office, and while some of these quotes might warrant some degree of concern, you really do seem to be making a pretty baseless case for me to really want to get rid of this guy. And I really wish you would stop trying to make the assertion that all of mainstream America is made up of conservatives. While I understand Clinton's ridiculous "Assault Weapons" ban was largely responsible for the mini Republican revolution in 1994, I can't really see what this gained for the country in areas other than more Democrats realizing and respecting the power of voting gun-owners, which is why a similar bill in Congress would never even come close to passing today because half the Democrats are pro-gun, as they
Maybe before commenting on what is clear or unclear in our constitution, Mr. Sunstein should read the supporting arguments for the ammendments to the constitution. Then he will understand there is no interpretation. Or maybe he doesn't want others to know what the founders of the constitution intended.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!