Obama's regulatory chief pushes new 'bill of rights

Cass Sunstein part of effort to change interpretation of Constitution by 2020

NEW YORK – A government that is constitutionally required to offer each citizen a "useful" job in the farms or industries of the nation.

A country whose leadership intercedes to ensure every farmer can sell his product for a good return.

A nation that has the power to act against "unfair competition" and monopolies in business.

This is not a description of Cuba, communist China or the old USSR. It's the vision of the future of the U.S, as mandated by a radical new "bill of rights" drawn up and pushed by President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein. Until now, Sunstein's proposal has received little scrutiny.

In 2004, Sunstein penned a 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. His inspiration for a new bill of rights came from President Roosevelt's 1944 proposal of a different, new set of bill of rights.

WND has learned that in April 2005, Sunstein opened up a conference at Yale Law School entitled "The Constitution in 2020," which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year.

Get Glenn Beck's 'Common Sense' ... The case against an out-of-control government: Inspired by Thomas Paine

Sunstein has been a main participant in the movement, which openly seeks to create a "progressive" consensus as to what the U.S. Constitution should provide for by the year 2020. It also suggests strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.

Just before his appearance at the conference, Sunstein wrote a blog entry in which he explained he "will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party."

In his book, Sunstein laid out what he wants to become the new bill of rights, which he calls the Second Bill of Rights:

Among 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.

On one page in his book, Sunstein claims he is "not seriously arguing" his bill of rights be "encompassed by anything in the Constitution," but on the next page he states that "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself."

Later in the book, Sunstein argues that "at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America's constitutive commitments.

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

-----------

Cass Sunstein confirmed in 57-40 vote

A mostly partisan Senate vote Thursday cleared Cass Sunstein as a White House regulatory overseer.

Cass Sunstein, a White House nominee who has drawn serious fire from the right, cleared the Senate on a mostly partisan vote Thursday.

Sunstein was confirmed as director of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a largely bureaucratic position in which he’ll oversee the effectiveness of federal regulations. But his nomination has roiled conservatives, led by Fox News host Glenn Beck, who have taken aim at Sunstein for some of his more liberal positions on animal rights and end-of-life care.

The Senate vote was 57-40, with only five Republicans backing the nomination. Four Democrats also voted against Sunstein.

Conservatives who opposed him were particularly incensed over statements Sunstein has made advocating greater regulation of hunting rights.

But Sunstein also faced resistance from a handful of conservative Democrats who voted against his nomination Thursday, including Sens. Mark Begich, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor and Jim Webb.

Here’s last night’s 57-40 Senate roll call vote on the confirmation of Cass Sunstein to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget aka “Regulatory Czar.”

Six Republicans voted yes– Bennett, Collins, Hatch, Lugar, Snowe, and Voinovich.

Five Democrats voted no — Begich, Lincoln, Nelson, Pryor, Webb.

Independent Sanders voted no.

Boxer and Byrd did not vote.

Source: politico.com

Related Resources:

• “NO” on Cass Sunstein for Regulatory ‘Czar’

• Cass Sunstein – Anti-Second Amendment

• Obama Regulation Czar, Cass Sunstein, Advocated Removing People’s Organs With Explicit Consent

• Absolutism Redux – Review of the Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever

• Cass Sunstein the Most Powerful Man You Never Heard Of!

• Judge Napolitano Says SunStein Will Be on Short List for Sup. CT

• Could Cass Sunstein Be the Next Van Jones?
• The Obama-ACORN Anti Gun Conspiracy
• So… You Want Gun Control?
• Horowitz: Together We Will Expose Obama’s Radical Agenda
• David Horowitz Exposes Leftist Agenda on Glenn Beck

• The Second Bill of Rights by Cass Sunstein

• Nudge – Written by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein

Related Stories:

• Video Shows ACORN Founder Wade Rathke Plotting America’s Downfall
• Chaos for My Glory: My Time With ACORN
• The Obama-ACORN Anti-Gun Conspiracy
• Video - Are SEIU and ACORN Forming Massive Organizations?
• Video - Is a Group of Groups Driving the Bus of Obama?
• Yosi Sergant - Obama Is a Figurehead...
• Acorn Cracked: Exposes ACORN’s Push for Socialized Medicine
• Is the National Civilian Security Force Obama Wants Americorp?
• Reasonable Questions for Unreasonable Times Part 4
• Michelle Obama is Building Her Boot Camps For Radicals with Tax-Payer Money
• • Obama Says We Need National Civilian Security Forces... Why?
  • Is the National Civilian Security Force Obama Wants Americorps?
  • College kids recruited to join Obama’s
  • Michelle Obama Wants More Influence on the President’s Agenda
• Memo: How to Beat the Right-Wing Mob
• What’s Behind Obama’s Sudden Attempt to Fire the AmeriCorps Inspector General??
• Conyers Backs Off Probe of ACORN
• Obama HC Town Halls – What Really Goes On and What They Cost
• Chavez Closing Media Outlets by the Dozens – the model that Mark Lloyd wants to emulate here in the U. S.
• FCC Diversity Officer (Czar) Plans to Shut Down Free Speech ? - Video
• Culture of Corruption
• Rules for Radicals
• American Progressivism

Ask Marion for Knowledge Creates Power/the Daily Thought Pad

Meet Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel: Deny Coverage to Elderly and Disabled for the Greater Good

Betsy McCaughey brings to our attention the Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel's views regarding universal health care. Dr. Emanuel is a health policy advisor to President Obama and brother of Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, so what he thinks may impact all of us. As Betsy points out, Dr. Emanuel has some very radical views regarding the rationing of health care. Take for example Emanuel's comments in a 2008 article in which he says cutting costs won't be easy:

Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change.

In other words, these procedural changes aren't really change at all. Instead, he thinks we need change in how we apply health care coverage. As Betsy notes, Dr. Emanuel believes doctors try too hard to apply the Hippocratic Oath to everyone as equally as possible, which is what drives up costs. Instead Emanuel thinks we need to ration basic, guaranteed care to only those who can fully participate in society. Betsy points out a 1996 Hastings Center article in which Emanuel wrote this:

This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just alloca- tion of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.

So, according to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health care advisor to President Obama, the elderly with dementia and the young who have neurological disorders should be sacrificed for the common good. I can tell you that as a mom to a four year old girl with severe speech apraxia that prevents her from being able to speak intelligibly, this scares the living hell out of me. If you have a child with autism, cerebral palsy, Downs syndrome, or any other neurological disorder or chromosomal defect that prevents him or her from participating in society in the manner Dr. Emanuel or the government thinks they should, that neurological care would not be guaranteed as basic and would, therefore, not be covered in a government takeover of health care.

Making things even worse, private health care companies will be driven out of business, so that won't be an option for parents with disabled children, either, leaving them with no coverage whatsoever. This kind of policy would drive up the abortion rate, which Obama and other liberals want covered as a basic care, as doctors urge parents go out of their way to screen their unborn babies for any and all disorders and defects that would not be covered under basic care. If a child's disorder is undetected by prenatal testing, what happens when the disorder becomes obvious after birth? I shudder to think what the government would come up with then.

Emanuel's policies would lead to a further deterioration of our nation's culture as people begin to look at those with disabilities as objects that drive up collective health care costs instead of as individual human beings who have intrinsic value and rights endowed to them by God.

Posted by Kim Priestap – Wizbang – July 26, 2009

Review of Complete Lives System

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel and Obama’s Health Policy Adviser, announced a new “Complete Lives System” for selecting which sections of the population should be killed, in his article “Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions.”. His writings were published Jan. 31, 2009 in the British medical journal Lancet…11 days after President Obama’s inauguration.
On March 19, Emanuel was appointed to the Federal Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, to begin the design of a Federal system for withdrawing care from those chosen for death. Dr. Emanuel provides a preview of how such a system will get started…

“Such an approach accepts a two-tiered health system-some citizens will receive only basic services while others will receive both basic and some discretionary health services… Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”

“When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” This may be justified by public opinion, since “broad consensus favours adolescents over very young infants, and young adults over very elderly people.”

“Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects…. Adolescents have received substantial substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments…. It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does.”

“The ‘complete lives’ system also considers prognosis, since its aim is to achieve complete lives. A young person with a poor prognosis has had few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern that disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses.”

“Social Value Allocation” prioritizes specific individuals to enable them to promote other important values, or rewards them for having promoted these values. In view of the multiplicity of reasonable values in society and in view of what is at stake, social value allocation must not legislate socially conventional, mainstream values.”

“Allocators must also avoid directing interventions earmarked for health needs to those not relevant to the health problem at hand, which covertly exacerbates scarcity. For instance, funeral directors might be essential to preserving health in an influenza pandemic, but not during a shortage of intensive-care beds. For instance, former organ donors seem to deserve reciprocity since they make a serious sacrifice and since there is no surplus of organ donors. By contrast, laboratory staff who serve as vaccine production workers do not incur serious risk nor are they irreplaceable, so reciprocity seems less appropriate for them.”

Related Resources:

• Obama’s Rogues Gallery: Ezekial Emanuel – Goodnight Grandma
• Complete Lives System by Ezekial Emanuel
• Ezekiel Emanuel, architect of ObamaCare..please read
• Meet Your Science Czar
• ACORN CRACKED: Exposes ACORN"S Push for Socialized Medicine
• Kennedy: Let’s Ration Healthcare
• Ghoulish Science Plus Obamacare Equals Health Hazard
• Reparations By Way of Health Care Reform
• Obama in 2007 Said He Wanted to Eliminate Private Health Insurance
• ObamaCare For Seniors: Sorry, You’re Just Not Worth It
• *Letter to Your Congress Person on Health Care (Obamacare) HR3200
• *A Look at What is Really in the Health Care Bill (HR 3200): Chilling!
• Useless Eaters
• Absolutism Redux – Review of the Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever
• America Senses Something Isn't Right
• American Progressivism
• Liberal Fascism
• The Second Bill of Rights