Difference between revisions of "The 2nd Bill of Rights"
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
He stated that the guarantee of these rights would further guarantee the security of the U.S. and enhance our position in the world. | He stated that the guarantee of these rights would further guarantee the security of the U.S. and enhance our position in the world. | ||
| − | The founders of the United States were explicit in repudiating such rights - not naming them one by one, but by being careful to make clear that "equality" meant that every person enjoyed a fundamental set of "unalienable rights" which did not imply equality of resource (of any kind) or happiness, or outcome. | + | The founders of the United States were explicit in repudiating such rights - not naming them one by one, but by being careful to make clear that "equality" meant that every person enjoyed a fundamental set of "unalienable rights" which did not imply equality of resource (of any kind) or happiness, or outcome. |
| + | |||
| + | Many have argued with the backing of fact,<ref name="W&P">Gilder, George. ''Wealth and Poverty''. New York. Basic Books, Inc. 1981</ref><ref name="Coming Apart">Murray, Charles. ''Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010'' New York. Crown Forum. 2012</ref> | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Citations}} | {{Citations}} | ||
Revision as of 18:25, 9 July 2014
2014/07/09 User:Jeff
The Second Bill of Rights was a list of rights asserted by FDR during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944. He claimed that the rights established in the Constitution as amended were inadequate to assure equality in the pursuit of happiness. He asserted an economic bill of rights:
- Employment with a living wage
- Food, clothing and leisure
- Farmers' rights to a fair income
- Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
- Housing
- Medical care
- Social security
- Education
He stated that the guarantee of these rights would further guarantee the security of the U.S. and enhance our position in the world.
The founders of the United States were explicit in repudiating such rights - not naming them one by one, but by being careful to make clear that "equality" meant that every person enjoyed a fundamental set of "unalienable rights" which did not imply equality of resource (of any kind) or happiness, or outcome.
Many have argued with the backing of fact,[1][2]
