« | »

Democrats Want A Second Bill of Rights

As you have probably heard, many Democrats are now calling for a “Second Bill Of Rights.”

Such as Marcie Kaptur (D., Toledo, OH) noted in her welcoming remarks for Barack Obama back on October 13, 2008. (Starting about :50 seconds in to the clip.)

Alas, this is not a new idea with the Democrats. It goes back to 1944 and President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

From Wikipedia:

Second Bill of Rights

The Second Bill of Rights was a proposal made by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944 to suggest that the nation had come to recognize, and should now implement, a second bill of rights.

Roosevelt did not argue for any change to the United States Constitution; he argued that the second bill of rights was to be implemented politically, not by federal judges.

Roosevelt’s stated justification was that the “political rights” granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had “proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.”

Roosevelt’s remedy was to create an “economic bill of rights” which would guarantee:

* A job with a living wage
* Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
* Homeownership
* Medical care
* Education
* Recreation

Roosevelt stated that having these rights would guarantee American security, and that America’s place in the world depended upon how far these and similar rights had been carried into practice.

“The Economic Bill of Rights”

Excerpt from President Roosevelt’s January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union:

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these 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.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

Imagine, Mr. Roosevelt at the height of his powers — and socialist delusions — could not get this through.

But now it’s very possible that Mr. Obama and a powerful Democrat majority in Congress will be able to.

If we let them.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, October 28th, 2008. Comments are currently closed.

19 Responses to “Democrats Want A Second Bill of Rights”

  1. Colonel1961 says:

    Free cheese! Whee!!!

  2. pinandpuller says:

    Freedom from owning guns; freedom from making my own decisions…an xbox in every pot.

  3. proreason says:

    Well it’s clear, the country need an Obamastitution. Whatever Obama wants, whenever he wants it.

    If you don’t agree, you’re a racist.

  4. platypus says:

    When freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will have freedom.

    That’s where you’ll find me, if it comes to that.

  5. RichieRich says:

    If everything is proved for me,…what’s my motivation to get up in the morning and go to work?
    This plan is fundimentally flawed, Just look at the”War on Poverty”. The system made an entire generation of blacks dependant on welfare and the government for all their wants and needs. Now, the first place they look for anything, is the government.
    What the government gives, the government can take away. Their tentacles will reach further and further into our lives. They will decide who is worthy of medical care and housing. If you don’t like it,..TOUGH! Where’s your recourse? Answer: There is none.

  6. DGA says:

    “The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation”

    Sounds a lot like France, it’s almost impossible in France to actually fire an employee, almost to the point that they have this same “right” to a job. I’ll let these dem clowns in on a little secret: employees don’t own the jobs, the EMPLOYERS do! And it’s the employer’s right to give that job to whomever they please, whomever will actually DO that stated job. Start pulling this “Right to a job” crap and you will copy France’s massive unemployment problem where employers have to be so careful who they hire because they will be practically stuck with them for life, so the marginally employable (Those “youths” who were setting cars on fire a couple of years ago, actually muslims) end up on the street. Yet another dumb, dumb dem plan.

  7. BillK says:

    I’ll let these dem clowns in on a little secret: employees don’t own the jobs, the EMPLOYERS do! And it’s the employer’s right to give that job to whomever they please, whomever will actually DO that stated job.

    That’s the thing – the Obama Government doesn’t care what matters to employers or not.

    Thus when employers are mandated to provide a $50,000/year job as a “minimum wage” and job availability goes to zero, they will need to start massive Government job programs to “solve the jobs crisis.”

    How to pay for that? Why, soak the rich, of course.

    When they start this, don’t blame me, but I honestly believe what we’ll see over the next four years is taxation not based on your income but based on your net worth.

    After all, why should you not have to pay your “fair share” just because you live off money that was made under “worker hostile tax rates?”

  8. Anonymoose says:

    The problem is the Bill of Rights limits that the government can or cannot do to you. This “Economic Bill of Rights” lays out what the government should for you. Things like this sound so good to Dems and Liberals, but they’re ultimately unworkable, as they depend on perpetual economic good times and people both willing to step up and pay the taxes for it and not take it all for granted. It’s kind of like the recurring problem where a successful man who brought himself up from poverty has a son who amounts to nothing. The son doesn’t have to struggle, he sees any hardship or privation as an artificial lesson, not reality. Ergo the son never develops the same drive or ambitions his father had. Raise a generation or so of people like this and it’s a mess. As mentioned above, employers who do hire anyone will be so discriminatory that even more people will be out of work.

    Practically everything in the “Economic Bill of Rights” is open to interpretation. Would a small tarpaper house, generic blue collar clothes, and a job sweeping floors be enough? Or how about a house in the suburbs with some fine duds and an SUV? What’s the “right” a person deserves?

    How can you make competition without it putting someone at a disadvantage? Or how much money is a”living wage?”

    All of this assumes there’s plenty to go around, and everyone is willing to share and contribute. But I’ve always felt human nature is too self centered, give people something and they want more. I can’t think of anywhere where this sort of vart sharing has worked, yet the Dems and Liberals keep thinking it’s out there and will happen some day.

  9. AnnieMcPhee says:

    So we never did sign the UN Declaration of Human Rights then? Damn, go figure – it’s been reported all over the leftist blogosphere that we HAVE signed it and ought to be obeying it; figures they would be wrong. It seemed wrong and insane that we would be party to something that utterly screwed (and the whole document is a lot worse than just the part Roosevelt discussed here.) I’m genuinely pissed that the whole left blogosphere has been reporting that we were signers of that ridiculous document now.

  10. AnnieMcPhee says:

    This practically incoherent (and thoroughly lacking in legal/constitutional understanding) treatise by the League of Women Voters http://www.dcwatch.com/lwvdc/lwv9811b.htm seems to suggest that we are bound by this ridiculous international “bill of rights”, whether or not we’ve ratified it, but I can’t seem to find them saying whether or not we’ve ratified it. Maybe because my eyes glaze over when reading too much leftist tripe – anyone else able to confirm for sure that we have never ratified it? Also, we are probably pretty close to doing so, if we’ve *signed* it – just like we are close to ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, a potentially DEVASTATING treaty for all families in the United States, which will make all children wards of the federal/international government and not their parents, despite 200 years of specific protection against such a measure. The problem with ratification is that it never goes away – each time the senate brings it up they just tend to get closer and closer to ratification, with the eventuality that they’ll all pass in the end. It’s not like they have to write anything anew; they can just bring it back to the floor. So…if we have not ratified this “Bill of Rights”, which has been around for a long time, it is likely that we will, and not much will be required in order to do so. I wouldn’t hold out much hope for us NOT adopting it under an Obama presidency with a majority in the Senate – and then it’s a hop skip and a jump to the Rights of the Child, and all hell will break loose. Interesting times indeed.

  11. Consilience says:

    Facts are pesky things—and the thug messiah and his besotted cult can’t be bothered. It’s not the results, it is the intention—like The Oprah says—it’s how you “FEEL” about something that counts.

    We’re sunk if this dear leader is elected—he’s already expressed contempt for the Constitution, and hung around with people who are a little more forthcoming on this fact.

    Keep the faith!

  12. StevefromMKE says:

    The only way *this* happens is if Republican voters are still hanging onto to the notion they have to punish the GOP again this November. But I think two people may have changed that notion this time around: Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber.

  13. Liberals Demise says:

    Obamas’ 1st edict for the masses is for everyone to take the day off Nov.4th. Be you employee or student, “Tune in, Turn on, Drop out!” Obama the DICK TATER has spoken…..so let it be written….so let it be done!!!

  14. Icarus says:

    On the surface, all of these “rights” are not evil; they appear benevolent and well intended.
    But underneath (singularly or as a whole) these “rights” are void of absolute TRUTH (is there any other kind?) and in particular they are void of JUSTICE. Forcing them upon a people handcuffs the FREEWILL there of. Even God does not remove our freewill to “do unto others” to follow the Commandments, to worship and serve only him.

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. …Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”

  15. A Mad Pole says:

    Should not the government (at all levels) first make sure that the original Bill of Rights is respected?
    The libdems got it all backwards, as always

  16. Colonel1961 says:

    ‘When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…’

    Bonnie Blue, Bonnie Blue, where are you?

  17. Icarus says:

    “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people … to assume among the powers of the earth, (and on a personal level as well) the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”

    “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation”

    And should these causes fall on the deaf leftist ears???:

    “We, therefore… … in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare… …full Power to levy War And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

    Will it come to this???

  18. Liberals Demise says:

    Was it not Thomas Jefferson who said, “A revolution every twenty years or so is a good thing.” Just to remind Washington who they work for!!

  19. Steve says:

    Mr. Limbaugh is going to discuss this thread again, and even play some excerpts from the FDR clip.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »