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

















Government schools are terrible why would you want to support them.
You know dam well that when FDR outlined these things
He wanted them to be provided by the government not just regulated by!!
And no capitalism is communism.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
Ok so explain how they were going to Implement a second bill of rights without amending the constitution either though amendments or court rulings?
"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?
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."
A Constitutional amendment is not required for every law or right in American society. How hard is that for you to understand?