Cass Sunstein: Unfairly Maligned?

I rise in defense of Cass Sunstein, President Obama's regulatory Czar, to the latest attack on him related to his 2008 paper "Conspiracy Theories." He has been unfairly accused of arguing that argued that "the U.S. government should ban 'conspiracy theorizing.'"

Granted, Cass Sunstein is a real whack-job on animal rights. My favorite quote from his paper, "The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer" is,

"If rats are able to suffer—and no one really doubts that they are—then their interests are relevant to the question how, and perhaps even whether, they can be expelled from houses." [Footnote omitted which offers an exception if the rats are diseased.]

Everyone who believe rats invading your home have a right remain alive, hold up your hand.

At least, the conspiracy paper proves he is not a truther.

Mr. Sunstein's paper on conspiracy theories is professorial and highly theoretical. Nowhere does the paper propose that the government ban conspiracy theorizing. He offers that "government response" as one of the solutions the theoretician would need to consider (among a myriad of other possibilities) before coming to a conclusion. He suggests that government agents could overtly or covertly infiltrate conspiracy discussions to provide accurate information, which he calls "cognitive infiltration." He cites the use of State Department Muslims participating in chat room discussion as a successful example of the former. As to covert infiltration, I assume we do that now with groups perceived to present a danger of violence. At least, I hope so.

This theoretical paper was NOT about what could or should be done under the law and was not limited to the United States with its system of laws. The paper is pure ivory tower and basically harmless. This paper reasonably read and understood does not contribute to otherwise justified perceptions of Cass Sunstein's whackiness.

Of Czars and Commissars

What about all these czars who are not confirmed by the Senate? Here is the legal requirement in the United States Constitution:

Section 2. Powers and Duties of the President
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. [Emphasis added.]

So, these czars (commissars, really) have no legal standing as "public ministers" or " other officers" without the Senate's advice and consent. What standing and authority do these commissars have, then? Can any action they take be challenged in a taxpayer's suit? I wish I knew.

Crackheads for Jones?

No, it is Nancy Pelosi. And the Mayor of San Francisco.



I think members of Congress should be subject to mandatory random drug testing.

Radicals Advising the White House

Are you as confused as I am about all this talk about Czars in our government? Is that really their official titles?

It turns out that, no, "Czar" is no one's official title. But each of these appointments is for a position that seems to wield particular power. Some of them are actually statutorily created and even require the advice and consent of the Senate for appointment. But in most cases, the official title is something like "Special Advisor to the President" and thus escapes the checks and balances of Senate confirmation. Sure the Democrats control the Senate, but evil in appointees backgrounds tends to get revealed in public hearings.

So the Obama administration (as, I suppose administrations before it) is trying to circumvent public scrutiny by special titles for people with powers in position not authorized -- or at least created -- by statute.

How is the attempt to avoid scrutiny working? In the case of the more outrageous appointments, not very well. Of course, what does the administration expect when it appoints people like:

-- Van Jones -- Outspoken, highly visible, self-described Communist who is the special advisor on creating green jobs.

-- Cass Sustein -- Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs who actually was confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate. He is a Harvard law professor that thinks your dog and even your tree should have the legal right to go into court to sue you. Really.

-- Mark Lloyd -- FCC diversity advisor who is an outspoken fan of Marxism and the Marxist dictator Hugo Chavez.

-- John Holdren -- special science advisor who co-authored a book years ago promoting euthanasia for population control and who refuses to disavow that wacky notion and others. Another far lefty for the administration.

For a complete list of the various "czars," go here.

The White House is getting a bit snarky about calling them Czars. The White House is perfectly right on this. Czars were the imperial leaders of Russia and there was only one at a time. A better and more descriptive title for the Obama administration would be "Commissars." I support the White House in making this correction.

In the meantime, whatever you call them, the White House is bringing itself into disrepute by appointing and supporting these radicals. As if the health care debacle weren't bad enough.

For ongoing coverage of this travesty, watch the Glenn Beck Show on Fox News at 5 pm Eastern time Monday through Friday.