2nd Bill of Rights

[Flystripper]

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;

Though not expressly in the constitution we are already protected from monopolies and unfair competition within the united states. I don't see the need to put it in the constitution.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't know how serious he was about them, or how far along any of them actually made it, but they were listed in his 1944 State of the Union address.



I'm not talking about result, I'm talking about rights. I'm sure you know that just because gov't offers something doesn't mean it's a right (i.e., it can be taken away).

Do you or do you not believe the Constitution currently guarantees a right to education and medical care (or anything else on FDR's list), and if not, should it?

The way the current system is structured, the Constitution gets us to the same result as if the right to education and healthcare were explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. If and when education ceases to be available to people generally (which isn't going to happen, making this argument totally academic), or people go to a hospital and aren't treated, I would happily revisit this issue to include a provision expressly providing for those rights.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The way the current system is structured, the Constitution gets us to the same result as if the right to education and healthcare were explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. If and when education ceases to be available to people generally (which isn't going to happen, making this argument totally academic), or people go to a hospital and aren't treated, I would happily revisit this issue to include a provision expressly providing for those rights.

Well, you're dodging the question, but ok ... let's move on to something new.

How about the right to a decent home? Seems reasonable, right? Why would we not want to guarantee that?

Or the right to a useful and remunerative job?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Well, you're dodging the question, but ok ... let's move on to something new.

How about the right to a decent home? Seems reasonable, right? Why would we not want to guarantee that?

Or the right to a useful and remunerative job?

No. I don't know what great debate you think you are stirring up here, but nobody is proposing those provisions be added to the Constitution.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No. I don't know what great debate you think you are stirring up here, but nobody is proposing those provisions be added to the Constitution.

Irrelevant. In my original post I asked if people thought they should be added. You keep doing a tap dance around answering.

You're welcome not to answer, of course. Just say, "I don't want to answer," or don't post at all. Simple.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Irrelevant. In my original post I asked if people thought they should be added. You keep doing a tap dance around answering.

You're welcome not to answer, of course. Just say, "I don't want to answer," or don't post at all. Simple.

If people thought they should be in the Constitution, they would propose them to be in the Constitution. Nobody has. Problem solved.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If people thought they should be in the Constitution, they would propose them to be in the Constitution. Nobody has. Problem solved.

Nice circular logic. Just don't answer next time.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Nice circular logic. Just don't answer next time.

That isn't circular logic. If X, then Y. Not Y, ergo not X.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

That isn't circular logic. If X, then Y. Not Y, ergo not X.

It certainly is. "No one's talking about it, so we shouldn't talk about it."

EDIT: After further thought, I will note ... your lame circular logic aside, your response is interestingly reflective of the modern left. Back in FDR's day it was accepted that to have these rights, a Constitutional amendment would be necessary.

Today, that's no longer so. Instead, the idea is to appoint liberal judges who will just read into the Constitution whatever right du jour you happen to want. Much easier to circumvent the democratic process that way.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

It certainly is. "No one's talking about it, so we shouldn't talk about it."

EDIT: After further thought, I will note ... your lame circular logic aside, your response is interestingly reflective of the modern left. Back in FDR's day it was accepted that to have these rights, a Constitutional amendment would be necessary.

Today, that's no longer so. Instead, the idea is to appoint liberal judges who will just read into the Constitution whatever right du jour you happen to want. Much easier to circumvent the democratic process that way.

No, it isn't. You struggle with logic. It has been a consistent theme in our conversations. This isn't a statement of "No one's talking about it, so we shouldn't talk about it." It is a statement that "If people wanted it to happen, they would talk about it. People aren't talking about it, so they don't really want it to happen." I don't care if you want to talk about it or not. You can also talk about whether or not Obama wants to cede New Mexico to Austria. I am sure you can have a lively debate with yourself on that point.