About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Quick Fact: Beck again falsely claims FDR, Sunstein were "pushing" to amend Constitution with "Second Bill of Rights"

January 11, 2010 7:45 pm ET — 29 Comments

On his Fox News program, Glenn Beck again falsely claimed that Franklin Roosevelt, in support of a "Second Bill of Rights," "was pushing for a change to the Constitution." Beck added that "progressives" like Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Director Cass Sunstein have "been pushing for the Second Bill of Rights since FDR," and cited this as evidence that such progressives "know" that health care reform is "unconstitutional."

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

From the January 11 broadcast of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: [Franklin D. Roosevelt] was pushing for a change to the Constitution that included those things. Regulatory czar Cass Sunstein tried to resurrect that failed attempt at creating the ultimate government control in his book, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It. Again, the progressives know this is unconstitutional. That's why they've been pushing for the Second Bill of Rights since FDR.

Fact: Sunstein said he (and FDR) "didn't want to change the text of the Constitution"

Sunstein: "Roosevelt didn't want to change the text of the Constitution," but to create "a declaration which isn't part of our legally binding text." As Media Matters for America previously documented, during an interview on the public television program The Open Mind, Cass Sunstein commented: "Roosevelt didn't want to change the text of the Constitution. So he didn't want to add the right to a good education or the right to a home or the right to Social Security in the text of the Constitution." Sunstein added: "What Roosevelt wanted to do was not to put the Second Bill in the Constitution, but to follow the model of his hero Thomas Jefferson, who was responsible for the Declaration of Independence, a declaration which isn't part of our legally binding text, but which helps animate our self understanding of the Declaration of Independence." [The Open Mind, 9/8/04]

Sunstein said he shared Roosevelt's view and was "nervous" about altering the Constitution. Sunstein also stated that Roosevelt's "view of the Second Bill of Rights, which I share, is that what we should think of this as, is very much like Jefferson's Declaration. Part of what we're committed to, part of what defines our self-understandings, but we're going to keep the judges out of it." Further, Sunstein commented that "[i]f, if we are excited about judicial protection of individual rights, then we might want the Second Bill of Rights in our Constitution. I, myself, am nervous about that, because I'm nervous about the judges" and that "I'd much prefer that we recover this aspect of our history."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by epkklk851 (January 11, 2010 7:56 pm ET)
      4  
      Glenn Beck is a multi-millionaire who owes his soul to his corporate masters. It sounds great to recommend taking care of yourself and doing it all for yourself. He can send his children to private school, he can afford ANY medical care they might need. He can equip his house to survive the worst storm or struggle without loosing power. He can equip a pantry to survive a war. He spouts this stuff to people about freedom and how FDR wanted to take their freedom from them, but he never has to make the sacrifice himself. Many of his listeners couldn't afford to do without the Federal money that is given for their sewage systems and roads. And they would squeal like stuck pigs if there was no regulation of product safety. Would you really want to go to a pharmacy and get pills that didn't contain the drugs you paid for? And what about police and fire protection. He can afford to pay for body guards and he can just move to another overpriced property. The freedom to be cold, wet, sick, and alone is no freedom at all.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by highliter (January 12, 2010 12:33 pm ET)
          2
        When has anyone ever said the government isn’t responsible for infrastructure, or police and fire departments? The government however isn’t responsible for buying you a house or getting you a job!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by epkklk851 (January 12, 2010 1:04 pm ET)
          1  
          I lot of Conservatives and the Teabaggers want to shrink government. Glenn is not in favor of public schools. They talk about getting rid of the nanny state and letting people make their own choices. They just don't realize what getting rid of government would really mean. The government doesn't have to buy you a house, it can merely pass regulations that require a well constructed home, and rules to fight with, if they aren't. It can help you buy a house by regulating the banking and mortgages industries to make them more user friendly and transparent. And, no the government doesn't have to get me a job, but it can provide regulations to keep employers from discriminating against me and it can set safety and compensation standards that ensure I am treated fairly. That is what government is for. If we rely on the Holy Free Market like some libertarians would have us do, we have seen that people are subborned to profits every time. A little bit of capitalism is a good thing, but too much is worse than none at all.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by highliter (January 12, 2010 3:46 pm ET)
              1
            First I live in an area of the country that has Zero Housing regulations and our homes are constructed just fine. If they weren’t we wouldn’t buy them and the companies that built them goes out of business.

            Government schools are terrible why would you want to support them.

            You know dam well that when FDR outlined these things

            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 family to a decent home

            The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health

            The right to a good education.


            He wanted them to be provided by the government not just regulated by!!

            And no capitalism is communism.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (January 12, 2010 4:50 pm ET)
              1  
              Highliter from that last post i can only deduce that you are a complete fool. Epkklk is 100% correct in his response to you.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by epkklk851 (January 12, 2010 5:50 pm ET)
                 
              No, no capitalism isn't communism. And I am quite sure there are housing regulations in your area-there are always electrical codes, sewage codes, material requirements. And yes, just because a company builds garbage, doesn't mean the houses will go away when the company does. I lived in a house that had galvanized pipes, perfectly to standard, except that my section of the county had soil that ate galvanized pipe within about three years. It cost my parents $500 to put in copper pipes, in 1976. The problems of people in my area caused a change in the regulations on future construction. And public schools aren't as bad as you think. It depends on the teachers, and I can tell you, as a former teacher, it depends on the parents. And there are a lot of unpleasant, demanding parents out there that strip the fun from schools.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by highliter (January 13, 2010 10:23 am ET)
                   
                Do you really think it was necessary to make a regulation banning galvanized pipe once it was found that they wouldn’t work? I would bet that even without that regulation people wouldn’t use them on their own. A perfect example of that is the old sewer pipe called Orangeburg it was found to collapse after a decade or so people quit using it no regulation had to tell them to stop they just did it because it didn’t work. And again where I live there are no regulations on building homes zero none nada. The only minor requirements are where the electrical enters the house, but that’s it. There are no inspectors therefore no inspections. FYI no one uses galvanized pipe anymore for anything all aluminum or copper depending on your location, all without regulation.

                As far as schools Private schools far outperform government school for a lot less money. Government schools are a joke im glad I didn’t have to go to one and my daughter wont either.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by paleocon44 (January 14, 2010 6:24 pm ET)
                     
                  highliter:
                  what town or area do you live in with "...no regulations on building homes zero none nada."? because, l guarantee you: they're present in your community and they protect you BEFORE the fact: not AFTER, as your philosophy would have.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by Aurien (January 12, 2010 5:53 pm ET)
                 
              I'd really like to know which state has absolutely no building codes. Just because you don't want them to exist doesn't make it so.

              It's funny how the government is just too stupid to get education, regulations, or health care right. But invading other countries and running multiple wars. Well they can do that no questions asked. Lets spend even more on that defense budget.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by riverdog (January 12, 2010 6:20 pm ET)
            1  
            conservatives and libertarians don't want to eliminate goverment but to reduce its control over citizens. most people want some basic rule on homebuilding but most are getting to be stupid and have been for years.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by MagCynic (January 11, 2010 10:04 pm ET)
      1 2
      The problem with this is that Thomas Jefferson would be appalled by what our government has become.

      “A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
      Report Abuse
      • Author by At_odds (January 11, 2010 11:10 pm ET)
        1  
        Thomas Jefferson also had different views on government than our first two presidents. Not too long after his presidency (1860's) America figured out that it can't survive without revenues. Frugality is good (to anyone), but the American people have continued to support certain government programs that we feel help the nation as a whole, and regulation is one of those things that American's ask for.

        Its odd, that Jefferson was FDR's hero however the point here is that FDR wanted to, as Jefferson did, create a document that was not legally binding, but one that reflected reflected our reality.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MagCynic (January 12, 2010 8:06 pm ET)
             
          Regardless, Jefferson wouldn't approve of hardly any what we call Progressive ideals.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by At_odds (January 13, 2010 2:04 am ET)
               
            I agree, but regardless, Jefferson's opinion is no more valid than FDR's or our other founding father's of whom he did not always agree with or approve of. The argument that Jefferson would disapprove of progressive ideals just circumvents the point of the topic. The point, once again, is that FDR's document would not have been a part of our constitution. Rather than being a legally binding document it would have been one that reflected our modern reality. Whether Jefferson would approve or disapprove does not change that point.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by JoeSixpack (January 12, 2010 11:31 am ET)
        2  
        Well, I'm sure Jefferson's female slaves would have consoled him. How ironic is it for a slave owner to talk of taking "from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned?"
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MagCynic (January 12, 2010 8:05 pm ET)
             
          Have you done any research into Jefferson's views on slavery or the reasons he kept slaves or what he left in his will for his slaves after he died? Did you know the reason why he had to keep slaves despite voicing his opposition to it? My guess is no.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by JoeSixpack (January 13, 2010 11:36 am ET)
               
            Oh please, by all means, educate me as to how Jefferson had to keep slaves - 600 of them - even though he didn't really want to. Good luck. Since you asked so nicely, though, I did do a little quick research and turned up these gems:

            As historian David Brion Davis noted, if Jefferson had died in 1785, he would be remembered as an antislavery hero, as "one of the first statesmen anywhere to advocate concrete measures for eradicating slavery." After that time, however, there came a "thundering silence." Jefferson made no public statements on American slavery nor did he take any significant public action to change the course of his state or his nation.

            Countless articles and even entire books have been written trying to explain the contradictions between Jefferson's words and actions in regard to slavery. His views on race, which he first broadcast in his Notes on the State of Virginia in 1785, unquestionably affected his behavior. His belief in the inferiority of blacks, coupled with their presumed resentment of their former owners, made their removal from the United States an integral part of Jefferson's emancipation scheme. These convictions were exacerbated by the bloody revolution in Haiti and an aborted rebellion of slaves and free blacks in Virginia in 1800.

            As he wrote of slaves in 1814, "brought up from their infancy without necessity for thought or forecast, [they] are by their habits rendered as incapable as children of taking care of themselves." In the manner of other paternalistic slaveholders, he thus saw himself as the benevolent steward of the African Americans to whom he was bound in a relation of mutual dependency and obligation.


            I love that bit about "habits," by the way - as if the supposed effects of forced servitude were somehow just "habits" of theirs. Way to take responsibility, there, Tom.

            http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Thomas_Jefferson_and_Slavery

            Maybe after you're done explaining this, you can tell me how it's not completely hypocritical for a slave owner to complain about anyone "taking from the mouth of labor the bread which it has earned."
            Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (January 11, 2010 10:23 pm ET)
      4  
      Does Glenn Beck ever tell the truth?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jimieli (January 12, 2010 1:01 am ET)
      2  
      There goes professor Beck again teaching the masses, masses of sheep. All of his sheep follow as any good sheep does. It's amazing to me how many there are.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by highliter (January 12, 2010 11:40 am ET)
        3
      Have you all not heard the speech where FDR calls for a second bill of rights? Not only did he call for one he specifically outlined what those rights were.

      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.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by JoeSixpack (January 12, 2010 3:41 pm ET)
        2  
        Oddly enough, I don't see a single word in there about amending the Constitution. I don't see Roosevelt "calling" for a second bill of rights - I see him saying that American society in general has already accepted the legitimacy of these perfectly reasonable rights. The problem then becomes implementation. Nowhere in your post is there any mention of amending the Constitution. If you believe Beck's claim (you know, the one that's the basis of this item), how about some evidence of FDR & Sunstein's legislative intent?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by highliter (January 12, 2010 4:09 pm ET)
            1
          The problem then becomes implementation.


          Ok so explain how they were going to Implement a second bill of rights without amending the constitution either though amendments or court rulings?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by At_odds (January 13, 2010 2:32 am ET)
               
            Well said FDR. I second your sentiment. Thank you highliter for that speech. Too bad he failed to make any mention of a constitutional implementation of a second bill of rights.

            "We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established..."

            Since our society accepts these ideals our government has the duty to reasonably deliver them (heres your implementation) through regulation and government programs. It doesn't exactly equate to changing our constitution, does it?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by highliter (January 13, 2010 10:34 am ET)
                 
              You cant have so to speak rights. Either their rights or not. The constitution does not give the government the power to implement these things through regulation and government programs. You cant create rights through government programs that what amendments are for. How hard is that for you to understand.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by At_odds (January 14, 2010 1:57 am ET)
                   
                "You cant have so to speak rights. Either [they're] rights or not. "

                OK...(but rights can change over time)

                "The constitution does not give the government the power to implement these things through regulation and government programs."

                Good, you seem to understand.

                "You cant create rights through government programs that what amendments are for."

                Oh, so close!! OK so yes, Amendments protect our rights. Bills with enough support can be made into law, which I hope you understand can substantiate programs and rights, as long as they do not contradict the constitution. Amendments to the constitution need a great deal more support than a law, however they can override laws. The constitution is the supreme law under which other laws may act subordinate to. Laws can change a lot easier than the constitution (which is why the constitution garnishes so much respect and why theres so much outrage when someone hears that FDR "wanted" to pass a second bill of rights).

                "How hard is that for you to understand."
                Report Abuse
                • Author by highliter (January 14, 2010 11:01 am ET)
                     
                  If it’s not in the constitution is not a right plain and simple. I know that not the way you want it because then its too hard to add new rights. How did women get the right to vote and amendment, right to free speech an amendment, seeing a pattern here.
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by JoeSixpack (January 13, 2010 11:21 am ET)
               
            So basically, you have no evidence of legislative intent whatsoever, but you're sure that's what FDR really meant because you can't imagine any other way that rights could possibly be implemented. I think you need to stop mistaking your confusion for actual evidence.

            A Constitutional amendment is not required for every law or right in American society. How hard is that for you to understand?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by highliter (January 14, 2010 11:02 am ET)
                 
              If it’s not in the constitution is not a right plain and simple. I know that not the way you want it because then its too hard to add new rights. How did women get the right to vote and amendment, right to free speech an amendment, seeing a pattern here.
              Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.