The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution -- And Why We Need It More Than Ever

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.

Well written

Well written, well researched. This book holds strong messages for us right now. There are so many parallels between post-pandemic needs and what FDR was addressing. Highly recommended.

Cass does an awesome job framing the reasoning behind FDR's second bill of rights and then takes us on a constitutional and historic journey. I learned a ton of valuable information thank you Cass.

As expected

My first semi-legalese book. Quick and easy read, and very inspiring. The professor makes an excellent case. Who needs to amend the Second Bill to the Constitution? Just adopt it America. If you will it, its yours.

EXCELLENT, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED ANOTHER FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT

Love it! Great story.

This is an extraordinary book by a very influential law professor. What is so striking is that Sunstein seeks to further FDR's "Second Bill of Rights" (2BR), despite the fact that FDR's vision is contrary to that of America's founders. (Perhaps the founders were wrong, a charge that could be considered, but that inevitably would lead one toward unconstitutional convictions.) Regardless, FDR's 2BR is distinctly unconstitutional -- and that despite the fact that he swore to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.FDR's was not a unique posture toward (against?) the U.S. Constitution, mind you, as he stood firmly in the "progressive tradition" -- one that sees the U.S. Constitution as good, as distinctly dated, and definitely in need of fundamental change. Woodrow Wilson would be yet another. Closer to our own day would be Barack Obama. Sunstein now is Obama's Regulatory Czar, thus having significant influence to implement his deviant vision.Sunstein's major departure from the U.S. founding documents -- the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution -- is his regular assertion (rather, presupposition, in that he never quite establishes it but assumes it throughout) that the rights of U.S. citizens originate with the state. This view stands distinctly contrary to the view of the founders that human rights are granted by God, and that the state thus is obligated to uphold them. Not only that, but the state's viability is contingent upon whether or not it acknowledges and upholds those rights. Sunstein's view (and FDR's and Obama's) departs from these convictions and sees the state as the ultimate source and granter of such rights. As such, what the state gives, the state may also take away. One's ultimate allegiance is thus seen as being to the state.No divine law. No natural law. Only positive law. This is not the vision of the founders or of the U.S. founding documents. As such, one can only see the constitutional oaths of such men as FDR, Wilson, Obama and Sunstein (are czar's required to take such an oath?) as distinctly dubious, as massively misleading, as subtly subversive, and as actively anti-American.