What happened to Roosevelt's 2nd bill of American rights?

I see. You are talking about Falzenberg. Who wrote a rather silly book, now judged by most economists to have been ludicrously ridiculous.

But, what the hell. You have mustered one economist. Who are the others that have contributed to you "growing consensus"?

PS Can't you Google?

 

Congratulations! You get to remain irrational and uncertain about how you arrive your opinions.

 

I will give you the benefit pf the doubt by conceding that might mean something.

But I will leave it to others to figure out what.

 

they smothered him and his bill of rights with a pillow.

 

How do you go about giving everyone a job? how does this work and in what country has this worked for more then 50 years?

 

why isn't there a job for everyone?

it worked for the millions of years of human existence, up until capitalism.

 

Listen to Milton Friedman about the production of a pencil, you will understand why governments should not direct the market.

 

It's very easy.

Almost all of FDR's "2nd Bill of Rights" was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

As hard as FDR tried and tried, he could only force so much socialism past the Justices. That's why there was that whole court packing thing.. you know, like Chavez did in his country.

Thank goodness he never got it through.

 

The OWS would do well to consider this as their platform for their new democracy.

 

Have you missed their demands and signs? It's as if they plagerized FDR's socialist dream word for word.....

memorized, I'm sure, during unfortunate exposure to leftist proctored political science classes.

 

So you regard with horror the prospect of OWS demands for legislated social justice just because FDR invented it?

 

Your Supreme Court is just another political player. It has no independence of the executive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

It is a creature of whoever appointed its judges.

The American political system is more about cheques and bank balances favouring those the Supreme Court is appointed to like than it is about constitutional checks and balances.

 

I regard with horror incremental and increasingly egregious perversions of our Constitution...

to satisfy arbitrary notions of positive rights...specifically, government issued, group "equality" and social "justice".

 

Yeah, positive rights are so dam.nably awkward, are'nt they?

Letting those ornery slaves vote n' stuff was just plain wrong to a right-thinking man.

 

Freedom from slavery is a negative right.

 

What the hell does that mean?

FDR was talking about freedom from poverty, wasn't he?

Ain't dat negative too?

 

Nope....positive.

Anything government can "give" you (freedom from poverty, eg) over and above protection of equal, "creator" endowed negative rights is either a priviledge or a positive "right".....and most often these issuances infringe on the negative rights (property) of someone else.

 

The Constitution is the legal document of our foundation...not letters, writings or heresay from ex-presidents. We all know how a blurb or line from a personal letter can get totally out of context. Commonsense would say....look to the actual legal document. That will tell you what our founders worked out.

 

Your constitution prescribed the formula whereby a monied aristocracy could exploit other Americans?

Show me the clause that did that.

 

If it was a Constitutional Amendment as he wanted the Courts would not have any interest in this it would by its nature be law of the land. But couldn't states do this at their level in some cases?

 

Actually it for YOU too, it's for EVERYBODY.

 

Okay, so replace "you" with "everybody" and then answer his question.

What right do you have to use the police powers of the state to force others to provide these things for you/me/everybody?

 

Because I would chooe to do it, and if enough people would join with me, enough to make a majority, then we could decide that's what we'll do. I can see that by pooling everybodies resources, I believe I likely would get a better deal on my health care or my daughter's college tuition, or any number of things, so I'd be for it. If I had to pay say 5% more taxes to get my daughter's college tuition lowered to a very cheap rate, I'd gladly pay that, than have her be in $100,000 in debt for 30 years. Do I care if other people my not have children to pay tuition for? HELLLL NO! I'm just using this as my way to compete for scarce resourse in the market. the market you ask? YES THE MARKET, the GOVT is an input into the MARKET, always has been , when was the last time there was no govt? Maybe cave man days is the answer. All this stuff is valid and right, under the US Constitution! You don't love the US Constitution? then get out of MY COUNTRY, love it or leave it baby! God Bless America.

 

So, in other words, the mob gives you the right. The same justification could be used for chattel slavery...hardly a convincing argument.

 

That's alright. Because then the minority endorses extreme measures like secession to escape from your tyrannical authoritarian impulses to improve your life. We WILL get the hell out of "your" country. We'll just make (*)(*)(*)(*) sure you don't have any country worth keeping in the process.