I just wondered how many knew that FDR came up with a Second Bill of Rights that was suppose to go hand in hand with the first bill of rights? Here is what he said,

"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation; to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; of every businessman, large, and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; of every family to a decent home; to adequate medical care and the oppurtunity to achieve and enjoy good health; to adequate protection form the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployement; to a good education."

So who here agrees with the second bill of rights?

Originally posted by whodey
I just wondered how many knew that FDR came up with a Second Bill of Rights that was suppose to go hand in hand with the first bill of rights? Here is what he said,

"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation; to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; of every farmer to ...[text shortened]... and unemployement; to a good education."

So who here agrees with the second bill of rights?

Here are the original rights granted to us by our Forfathers
1. Right to free speech
2. Right to free press
3. Right to free worship
4. Right to trial by jury
5. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizures.

Now if the progressives had been in charge, I think these would have looked a tad bit different. They would have gone something like this.

1. Right to free speech, so long as it is politically correct and not "offensive".
2. Right to a free press, so long as both sides of the arguement are offered so as to be "fair". Otherwise is will not be allowed.
3. Right to free worship, so long as the image or even name of God is not uttered or seen on state owned property.
4. Right to a trial by jury, with the rights of the accused superceding that of the one who was violated.
5. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The courts will then later tell you exactly if the state was "unreasonable".

Originally posted by sh76
While we're at it, let's also promise eternal happiness to each person for life as well. Maybe we can promise sex with a different virgin hottie every night too. No, let's give each person the inalienable right to a Caribbean island paradise he can call his own.

I hope the reason FDR gave up on the idea is that someone had the guts to ask him just how he intended to accomplish these wonderful and lofty goals.

Originally posted by whodey
I just wondered how many knew that FDR came up with a Second Bill of Rights that was suppose to go hand in hand with the first bill of rights? Here is what he said,

"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation; to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; of every farmer to ...[text shortened]... and unemployement; to a good education."

So who here agrees with the second bill of rights?

Originally posted by whodey
I think that the two philosophies or two bill of rights should be contrasted and compared. It seems to me that the Founding Fathers wished to give freedoms to its citizens from the abuses of government so that THEY and THEY alone could pursue hapiness and freedom. It was the freedom to pursue hapiness and not the state mandating it. Notice that they did no ...[text shortened]... ng what we deserve but the other prevents the authoritarian state from over stepping its bounds.

Originally posted by whodey

Now if the progressives had been in charge, I think these would have looked a tad bit different. They would have gone something like this.

1. Right to free speech, so long as it is politically correct and not "offensive".
2. Right to a free press, so long as both sides of the arguement are offered so as to be "fair". Otherwise is will not be allowed. ...[text shortened]... and seizure. The courts will then later tell you exactly if the state was "unreasonable".

Originally posted by karnachz
Not entirely true. Thomas Paine said that society has a "sacred duty" to take care of the poor and needy, and advocated an intact welfare state as well as progressive taxation and inheritance taxes. These views were not notably opposed by other Founding Fathers; indeed, Thomas Jefferson argued for progressive taxation as well.

Some of the framework you itution says that the govt has the right to collect taxes for the general welfare of society.

Originally posted by whodey
3. Right to free worship, so long as the image or even name of God is not uttered or seen on state owned property.

Originally posted by whodey
I just wondered how many knew that FDR came up with a Second Bill of Rights that was suppose to go hand in hand with the first bill of rights? Here is what he said,

"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation; to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; of every farmer to ...[text shortened]... and unemployement; to a good education."

So who here agrees with the second bill of rights?

Originally posted by rwingett
That's exactly right. You have the right to free worship. You can go to any church you want. But the constitution also protects against the establishment of any religion, which means the state and church shall remain separate. Of course there are many instances where god is still uttered and seen on state owned property in violation of this principle. Protecting that wall of separation is a never ending battle.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
a nation where everyone can meet their basic needs for things like food and clothing.

an economy people with new ideas can start a business and have it grow and thrive without having it crushed by some super-corporation bent on eliminating all competition.

a nation where everyone can enjoy good health and not have to worry that some catastrophe wil ...[text shortened]... od job that matches their level of talent.


A radical agenda if you ask me. Must be stopped.

Originally posted by sh76
All great ideas.

But, you can't make them into Constitutional rights. Otherwise, every time someone has a health problem or a bad business transaction, they'll sue the government for failing to provide their Constitutional rights.

Constitutional rights are protections from government, not guarantees of provisions by government.

Originally posted by rwingett
There were those who opposed the adoption of a Bill of Rights, not because they were opposed to the concept of rights, but because they thought enumerating specific rights would mean people did NOT have a right to anything not on the list. They would lose the right to anything not specifically listed and therefore it was best not to list them at all.

Were they right?

Originally posted by sh76
No, they were wrong. Their reasoning made some sense, but you can only judge by the event. And, in the event, the Bill of Rights has worked just fine. So, the verdict of history is that they were wrong.

Is it possible that I'm also wrong and that such affirmative rights and entitlements should also be enumerated in the federal Constitution? Sure. It's possib ...[text shortened]... do it, the enumerated entitlements are much more narrow that those in Whodey's post, above.