A Second Bill Of Rights

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by MAgnum9987, Aug 15, 2010.

  1. MAgnum9987

    MAgnum9987 Do What Thou Wilt

    In the 1944 State of the Union Address, Franklin Delano Roosevelt suggested that the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights had not sufficiently equalized Americans, and perhaps thought/predicted (correctly) that capitalism, as great as it was, would drive us into the ground. So he thought that as soon as WW2 was over, he planned on making a Second Bill Of Rights. These would guarantee all Americans work, a home, education, and medicare, among other things.
    He outlined this Second Bill of Rights in the 1944 State Of the Union address.

    Considering the quite possible failure that is Medicare, and our current recession, I believe now would be an excellent time to usher in a few well placed additives to the Constitution. Something set in stone, that gives Americans solid ground to rely upon. Now, in a time when people can be thrown out of the home they've worked hard years of their lives on. Something that can spit in the eyes of big corporations trying to screw us over, and the eyes of the insurance companies too. I think its time to level the playing field and give America back to who it really has been about, the Middle and Lower Class.

    Any ideas, suggestions, alterations?
    Gavik likes this.

  2. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    The problem comes when to attain such rights you must remove certain rights. When you rely on an organic self regulating capitalist sytem as so many proponents rightly support you also get an inequality, an unbalanced system littered with cracks that show true when given a shopping list of demands to meet. When these are set in stone you get stuck in a perpetual cycle of trying to fill a crack whilst just exposing another, people will exploit to the limit of and others will find exception of. The playing field is not and never will be level.

    I think flexibility is key and one right could easily adapt to and cover all the above, would of also made for a shorter speech:lol:

    "The right for economic prosperity and social development that meets the aspirations and standards of the individual within the greater community"
  3. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    People have these rights already, the problem is some people interpret these things to mean "the government should hand these to us" which of course translates to taking from Peter to give to Paul. Americans have a right to attain an education, a home, a job, medical care, etc...thing is go out and earn them instead of asking for it to be provided to you.
  4. Gavik

    Gavik Registered Member

    How so?

    Err, how do you earn rights? They're not rights if you have to earn them.

    That's like saying: "You have the right to these antibiotics, which will cure your deadly infection, but you didn't make enough money to afford them so you obviously didn't earn them."

    I never earned my right to free speech. You never earned your right to freedom from self incrimination. You can't earn those by definition.
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2010
  5. Wade8813

    Wade8813 Registered Member

    I'm guessing CO is saying (or is trying to say) you don't have the right to a job - you have the right to be able to get a job.
  6. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species


    "Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made."

    The solution; dictate to them and give them a list of demands to be met.

    An example if you have a right to all of the above and those rights are not being fulfilled something has to give.If the business are not providing the useful and remunerative jobs or the farmer not getting the returns on his stock. how do we fix that problem? ...most likely route would be to infringe on 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 recent economic crisis, with foresight the US government would of not been able to protect this bill of rights had the banks and large industries collapsed. As CO used in his paragraph, take from Peter to give to Paul, the reality is that this already the way society works. eg; Unless the rich are taxed to high buggery then the poor/middle classes can not get the right to a decent home or education. Who's rights do you remove first?

    This is why it is always bad to have things set in stone. When everything is clearly defined to what is provided and what is not there is little room for social upheaval. Using my own country as an example society expects nothing less than medical care and education to be provided to all, had we been shackled to a list then that social advancement could not of taken place. Before anybody disagrees it is progressive to go from merely making attainable to actually having the ability to provide universally whether you agree with that progression or not.

    Social expectations make the rights, those expectations must be free to change. What is the norm one day is not the norm the next. What must be considered a right one day is a given the next, societies change. Rights should be adaptable.
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2010
  7. SmilinSilhouette

    SmilinSilhouette Registered Member

    "A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."


    "The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases,"

    Individual freedom and liberty are the solid ground and self-determination is what I rely upon. We enjoy freedom of equal opportunity, not guaranteed equality of outcomes. If citizens are guaranteed all those things why work? I wouldn't. Who then will be expected to provide all these entitlements?
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2010
  8. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    I'm not saying you earn rights, I'm saying those things listed are things that you earn, not things that are given to you simply by being a citizen of the US.

    For anything to be a right it implies you have a right to that or you can sue someone from denying that right. If you accept that you have a right to a house then you can sue someone if you don't have a house.

    If you carry these "rights" to their ultimate conclusion they end up being pretty idiotic. They make for great politcal talking points and can be used to rally people towards a certain candidate, but they are by and large nonsensical.
    I pretty much agree with this, having things like this that set in stone there is no opportunity for social change. You're right, it is progressive even if you don't agree with the change.
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2010
  9. Gavik

    Gavik Registered Member

    I don't think you're considering the bigger picture here. If these new "rights" were ever put in place, it would bring about a fundamental restructuring of the federal government. It wouldn't simply be some sort of new stimulus bill. Of course, America would still stand for the same ideals and all, and after the reshuffle it would all look almost identical, but sources of funding, how tax funds are spent and all would be very different. For example, the military budget would be greatly diminished (at least cut in half). Also, I believe that securing these new "rights" would boost the economy, if done correctly (more homes being built and bought, more jobs, larger health care system, etc).

    Now, if it had called for something like "the right to never be offended by anything" then that would necessarily mean curbing the first amendment. However, none of these require a communist system or the curbing of rights by their definition.

    Any system can be corrupted for malicious purposes, yet this is hardly a certainty. And I would strongly disagree with the second quote.

    I think these new measures give a realistic chance of equal opportunity. America as it is doesn't always offer this.

    This isn't simply an overgrown unemployment benefits package. They require a strong economy and high employment to be of any use.

    What do you see as their "ultimate conclusion?"
  10. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    Tangible property versus rights we have that can be protected.

    If the government, whether state or federal, passes a law that interferes with your right to freedom of speech you can sue.

    If we have a "right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation" for example, then the state or federal government owes you a wage regardless of your qualifications, and if you don't earn that wage then you can sue the state or federal government for not providing that wage.

    What we have is the right to be able to make that wage without discrimination on race, ethnicity, religion, etc...we don't and really can't have a right to the wage itself, property, just based on being a citizen or being in the US. Not only would it be a mess as far as providing these things, it would be catastrophic economically.

Share This Page