Sunstein: Obama, not courts, should interpret law

[luvmylabs]

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

http://tinyurl.com/m976kf

Sunstein: Obama, not courts, should interpret law
'Beliefs and commitments' of nation's leader should supersede judges

Posted: September 18, 2009

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – 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.

[DAL]

See, Obama is a lot more like Bush than anyone imagined! He wants maximal power and authority, too.

It has long been settled law that when a statute is ambiguous and a regulatory agency is charged with enforcing or implementing it, the agency's interpretation of the law is given great deference by the courts. Regulatory agencies are part of the Executive Branch. However, for the Executive Branch itself to be given the power to interpret ambiguous laws makes little sense, and could result in the law changing the moment a new President takes office. Agency regulations are subject to public comment and review by the courts.

I wish that Sunstein's paper were available online, because legal papers are rarely summarized correctly by any reporter.

[BigPat]

I wish that Sunstein's paper were available online, because legal papers are rarely summarized correctly by any reporter.

On that note, I don't think ANYTHING is summarized or reported correctly on Worldnetdaily...

[JPR]

Hey luvmylabs. I hear that Czar is also in favor of allowing animals to have legal representation and the right to bring suit. If that is true, it could change "man's best friend into man's worst fiend."

I hope you are on good terms with your doggies. As for me, I am putting filters on my computer to prevent my dog from surfing for a law firm.

[luvmylabs]

Hey luvmylabs. I hear that Czar is also in favor of allowing animals to have legal representation and the right to bring suit. If that is true, it could change "man's best friend into man's worst fiend."

I hope you are on good terms with your doggies. As for me, I am putting filters on my computer to prevent my dog from surfing for a law firm.

Oh, they are much more likely to sue the CZAR. My dogs are very pro hunting.
If the CZAR had his way he would take away their favorite sport.

[DAL]

No one seems to have looked at the article and noticed that Sunstein's paper was written in 2006, when Bush was president, and presidential elections were two years away. The article describes the paper as stating:

"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.

This statement was the central thesis of Sunstein's 2006 Yale Law School paper, "Beyond Marbury: The Executive's Power to Say What the Law Is." The paper, in which he argues the president and his advisers should be the ones to interpret federal laws, was obtained and reviewed by WND.

So, in the highly unlikely event that WND wanted to characterize the article fairly, the headline should have read:

Sunstein: Bush, not courts, should have interpreted law.

If what Sunstein is said to have written were adopted today, then the investigation of the legality of the CIA's interrogation techniques would end immediately.