The Second Bill of Rights: FDR'S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever (Hardcover)

~ (Author) "ON JANUARY 11,1944, the United States was engaged in its longest conflict since the Civil War..." (more)
Key Phrases: freedom from desperate conditions, sensible priority setting, constitutive commitments, United States, New York, South Africa (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

While it doesn't succeed in making Franklin Roosevelt into a constitutional innovator, this disheveled book does bring into focus FDR's forgotten effort to address domestic "security," as WWII neared its climax. Roosevelt's inaugural address of January 11, 1944, asked Congress to adopt a "second Bill of Rights": guarantees of work, adequate housing and income, medical care and education, among others—promises designed to extend the New Deal (and thwart the appeal of communism). The indefatigable Sunstein (Why Societies Need Dissent, etc.) sketches Roosevelt's domestic policies and the logistics of the inaugural address (included in full in an appendix), then debates the never-adopted bill's merits, historically as its ideas kicked around in the post WWII-era, and as it might be taken up today. He tends to be scanty on the bill's potential budgetary toll and on the responsibility for one's own welfare that FDR thought the bill's beneficiaries ought to bear. Sunstein roams widely over legal history and precedent, but is focused and clear in showing how FDR sowed the seeds of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (in whose 1948 drafting Eleanor Roosevelt played a crucial role) and energetic in discussing this proposal's further possible legacy.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Product Description

The Second Bill of Rights brings back from obscurity the greatest speech of the greatest president of the twentieth century, to issue a stirring call for much-needed rights that were never enacted.

In 1944, Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave a State of the Union Address that was arguably the greatest political speech of the twentieth century. The speech began what Cass R. Sunstein calls the Second American Revolution by giving form and specificity, for the first time, to the concept of human economic rights. Many of the great legislative achievements of the past sixty years stem from Roosevelt's proposal for a Second Bill of Rights. Yet these rights have never been written into the Constitution, and they remain the subject of passionate debate. In recent years they have even lost ground.

Using FDR's speech as a launching point, Sunstein examines the "legal realist" school of thought, which decisively refuted the idea of laissez-faire economics; describes how Roosevelt gradually developed the idea of a Second Bill of Rights; and asks why the Second Bill, which was almost enacted under the Warren Court, has never attained the constitutional status FDR sought for it. The reason, Sunstein maintains, is not anything unique to American culture or temperament but a particular historical accident: the election of Richard Nixon as President in 1968.

This is an ambitious, sweeping book that argues for a new vision of FDR, of constitutional history, and of our current political scene. The Second Bill of Rights is an integral part of the American tradition and the starting point for contemporary political reform.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 304 pages
• Publisher: Basic Books; 1ST edition (June 29, 2004)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0465083323
• ISBN-13: 978-0465083329
• Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 6.3 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.8 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (8 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #189,283 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in this category: (What's this?)

  #97 in

  Books > Nonfiction > Government > Social Policy

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

20 of 24 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Sunstein advocates an expanded Welfare State?, February 14, 2008

By	Stephen J. Jaros (Baton Rouge, LA USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution--And Why We Need It More Than Ever (Paperback)

I won't bore you with all the things that are good about this book (as usual, Sunstein's scholarship is first-rate, his prose is easy on the eyes even as the ideas are challenging to the mind). I'll get straight to my two problems with the substance of his advocacy of Roosevelt's "Second Bill of Rights", which encompass social-welfare rights not included in our actual Bill:

1) While Sunstein is careful to thoroughly review just about all possible objections - political, economic, legal, and moral - that one could throw at the idea of an expanded array of social-economic rights, the one he spends most of his time on is an attack on the "laissez-faire" idea that classic first-bill rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, property rights, and freedom of contract, are cost-free and don't require an active "government".

Sunstein shows that they do. But, the problem here is that he is demolishing a straw-man. I don't know of *any* modern "conservative" thinker who would disagree with the idea that a free market requires a significant amount of government - an elaborate legal system to enforce contracts, remedy fraud, document transactions; police and military forces to protect property, etc. Sunstein even quotes key free-market philosophers, such as Friedrich Hayek, to that effect. The only ones who truly believe in a literal absence of government are anarchists, and most conservative thinkers despise anarchists as much as they do leftists. No, the issue isn't whether we should have government or not have it, the issue is how *much* government we should have. By attacking an opponent who does not (or at least no longer) exists, Sunstein dodges that issue.

2) After addressing several objections to a Second Bill, Sunstein addresses the one of most concern to me: That Roosevelt's plan to "take from those who have large amounts of resources to ensure decent amounts for those who would otherwise be in desperate need" amounts to an immoral theft of property. In my view, the only people that i or any other citizen should be required, at point of bayonet, to support are members of my immediate family. If i am starving and my neighbor has plenty, it may be the right thing for him to give me food, and he may be worthy of condemnation by the community if he refuses to help me, but in my opinion he should not be required, by governmental force, to do so. To make my neighbor responsible for my well being would be morally wrong, a brutal violation of their right to dispose of what they earned as they see fit, with the caveat that they should be taxed to pay for essential government services that benefit everyone, such as police, fire, military, legal- the apparatus needed to protect "first bill" rights.

This is the real rub, because as Sunstein notes, many provisions in the "Second Bill", such as Social Security and a right to public education, have pretty much become law anyway. What hasn't become law, and what Sunstein really wants, is a welfare state that provides expanded housing, food, shelter and medical care for the poor, and not just at a bare minimum, but including enough spending money so that they can participate in the broader culture via purchase of consumer goods, too. Sunstein rejects the notion that people require only the "bare minimum for survival", saying that poverty is "relative", and in our affluent society people will not feel like "whole citizens" unless they have a lot of what they see others enjoying on television.

On pages 205-206, Sunstein addresses "my" point about the morality of "taking from the rich to give to the poor" by arguing that if one is to say that taking from the 'haves' to give to the 'have-nots' violates the rights of the 'haves', one would have to agree that "people have a right to their current holdings, and any dimunition amounts to a rights violation". Sunstein says that this position is implausible, because it is only the existence of laws and public institutions that make those holdings possible. He says "without public support, wealthy people could not possibly have what they own.... those who denounce government largesse as a violation of rights disregard the extent to which their own rights are a product of government".

That's it! That's his reply. In my opinion, it is totally inadequate, because if we take Sunstein's argument seriously, government can diminish any of our rights at any time for any reason, simply because it is government that protects them. If GW Bush wants to enact a law that allows the FBI to wire-tap anyone without a warrant at any time they please, or shut down newspapers that criticize the war in Iraq, one couldn't cry foul about one's rights being violated by an intrusive government, because by gosh it's only by the grace of government that we have any rights at all!

Since to me this was the key issue that Sunstein had to address and in my opinion he failed to do so, i was unconvinced by the thesis of the book.

5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Powerful challenge to Federalist Society view of Constitution, February 8, 2008

By	jerry kendall (brooklyn) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Second Bill of Rights: FDR'S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever (Hardcover)

Professor Sunstein recovers FDR's 1944 State of the Union address from the dust bin of history. The speech makes a compelling case for the proposition that each of us has inherent economic rights; not just civil and political rights. Among these rights are a right to a useful and remunerative job, and the right to earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, health care, and recreation.

In part two of the book Sunstein however argues that these rights are not recognized in the Constitution. Rather they are "constitutive commitments," fundamental aspects of how we understand what America is about. In part three of the book he explains why it is that these now universally recognized human economic rights should not be considered Constitutional rights.

Professor Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago Law School, a Fellow at the Hoover Institute, and a scholar of the Cato Institute argues in his book How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution, almost as a counter-point, that the Supreme Court wrongly embraced FDR's social-economic revolution.

Reading these two together permits one to reflect on the role of the Supreme Court in effecting social change, the meaning and limits of the Constitution, and just what kind of a government the founders envisioned; and better understand the real stake in the debates about appointments to the Supreme Court.

For good measure one might also read Sotorios Barber's Welfare and the Constitution, a compelling case that the Constitution authorizes, even requires positive government. In other words, the government is, in fairness to President Reagan, part of the problem; but at the same time it is also a necessary part of the solution.

28 of 42 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Let the Sunstien!, October 8, 2004

By	Nonfiction Steve (Marquette, MI USA) - See all my reviews

This was my fist Sunstein book but it won't be my last. Three chapters (2, 6 and 11) alone are worth the book's price. Sunstein's obvious constitutional experience and social acumen offers depth and insight into many social issues of the day. He caused me to critically understand the definition of "government" and "rights" better than ever. His analysis of Laissez-Faire economic philosophy is the most practical I've ever read.

Although I was interested in the conditions for and results of the "New Deal", I was unaware of FDR's 2nd BOR probably I think, because few ever really gave it its proper emphasis and analysis. Sunstein filled in the missing pieces. His writing is well constructed, logical without becoming oppressive, and flowed nicely. It is a quick read.

The book is more than a historical analysis. It challenged my understandings of the role today of government and the constitution. I've been studying these issues for several years now, so Sunstein accomplished what few others could. It was truly a fresh approach that makes me feel like I understand social issues and their complications better than ever.

His treatment of FDR's Second Bill of Rights was fair and reasoned illustrating both sides of the argument. He thankfully made the discussion relevant to the issues of today and provided tools for me to use in discussions with others.

I've added more of his titles to my wish list. You should too.