Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Did FDR propose economic constitutional amendments?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 03:03 PM
Original message
Did FDR propose economic constitutional amendments?
The Constitution, in article V, is very clear on how amendments are proposed and implemented.

Recently, during a conversation, two contemporaries of mine made a claim that Franklin Roosevelt proposed a Constitutional Amendment making it a "right" to own a home and have a job, based on his call for a Second Bill Of (Economic)Rights. Their arguments subtly changed as the discussion went on, first that FDR wanted to make those "rights" constitutional amendments, then that he actually did propose amending the constitution:

Roosevelt wanted to drop welfare for better things like a Constitutional right to a job and a Constitutional right to a home.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2337336&mesg_id=2339145

The key word is Roosevelt WANTED to make these Constitutional
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2337336&mesg_id=2340215

Straw Man Alert... A Second Bill of Rights are Constitutional Amendments
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2337336&mesg_id=2341052

Me, being the type who likes to have at least some sort of corroboration, insisted on some proof that FDR WANTED to make constitutional amendments and proof that he actually proposed constitutional amendments. One of the people I was discussing it with contended that FDR speaking of his second Bill Of (Economic) Rights in a State of the Union address was tantamount to proposing constitutional amendments:

to deny that a call for a Second Bill of Rights from the PRESIDENTIAL bully pulpit is not to be interpreted as a CALL for CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS is insanly deaf dumb and blind.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2337336&mesg_id=2341096

Now, I repeatedly asked for proof beyond the link to the State of The Union address that kept being presented as proof, but all I got was the standard, "I've given you proof," and attempts to veer the discussion of on to other topics that had nothing to do with the discussion, like:

Do you agree with the proposition that great violence has been done to our Constitution by this administration?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2337336&mesg_id=2342434

Do they know about Operation Northwoods? or how about Operation Mockingbird?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2337336&mesg_id=2340996

Of course, if anyone here personally KNEW FDR and knew he wanted to make constitutional amendments, I'd like to hear about it. Or if anyone has any secret documentation that shows FDR proposed constitutional amendments, I would like to see those.

But in the interest of historical accuracy, my sources say FDR never had the intentions being projected on him by those in my discussion. What say you?

FDR did not set out to amend the text of the Constitution through the process set out in Article V.

Reviving FDR's Vision of What Guarantees Americans Deserve:
A Review of Cass Sunstein's The Second Bill of Rights
By MATT HERRINGTON

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20040924_herrington.html

Roosevelt did not argue that the Constitution should be amended to include the "Second Bill of Rights." But he did believe that social and economic rights ought to be seen as a defining part of our political culture...

Cass R. Sunstein, the Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago Law School and the author of more than a dozen books, including After the Rights Revolution, Designing Democracy and most recently, The Cost-Benefit State.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/sunstein-economicsecurity.html

The Second Bill of Rights was a proposal made by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944 to suggest that the nation had come to recognize, and should now implement, a second bill of rights. Roosevelt did not argue for any change to the United States Constitution; he argued that the second bill of rights was to be implemented politically, not by federal judges.

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


Discussions abound in papers in the FDR Library about whether or when to propose a constitutional amendment to support New Deal legislation. A letter of May 29, 1935, from Felix Frankfurter to FDR proposed to "Let the Court strike down any or all of them next winter or spring <1936> especially by a divided court. Then propose a constitutional amendment giving the national Government adequate power to cope with national economic and industrial problems." Roosevelt himself was persuaded that the amendment process was too slow and difficult. In his letter to Frankfurter of February 9, 1937 (written four days after the submission of his "court-packing" plan), FDR counted the chances of achieving a two-thirds vote in this session" as no better than "fifty-fifty." He also saw the ratification process possibly extending into the 1940 national election. So he chose not to seek a constitutional amendment...

EXPLICIT AND AUTHENTIC ACTS: AMENDING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, 1776-1995 by David E. Kyvig. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1996. 604 pp. Cloth $55.00. Reviewed by Donald W. Jackson, Department of Political Science, Texas Christian University.

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/kyvig.htm





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bushclipper Donating Member (297 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. FDR also signed a GI Bill of Rights. That wasn't a call for
a constitutional amendment, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Reagan also called for an Economic "Bill of Rights"
..from the presidential bully pulpit.

How is THAT amendment process going? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spaniard Donating Member (157 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. obviously no
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
4. FDR's "Economic Bill of Rights" - 1944 State of the Union Address
For a more Balanced Perspective check out FDR's 1944 State of the Union Address - It's possible that FDR really didn't passionately believe in any of this - could have been just bullshitting Americans, like most politicians in both parties have and still do. I kind of think that this meant something, but maybe it's all "wishful thinking" and fantasy.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/econrights/fdr-...

Franklin D. Roosevelt
“The Economic Bill of Rights”

Excerpt from 11 January 1944 message to Congress on the State of the Union

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

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;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

source: The Public Papers & Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt (Samuel Rosenman, ed.), Vol XIII (NY: Harper, 1950), 40-42

12 How. 152: “Necessitous men,” says the Lord Chancellor, in Vernon v Bethell, 2 Eden 113 (1762), “are not, truly speaking, free men; but, to answer a present emergency, will submit to any terms that the crafty may impose on them.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spaniard Donating Member (157 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. but not a call for a constitutional amendment
FDR did not set out to amend the text of the Constitution through the process set out in Article V.

Reviving FDR's Vision of What Guarantees Americans Deserve:
A Review of Cass Sunstein's The Second Bill of Rights
By MATT HERRINGTON

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20040924_herrington.html

Roosevelt did not argue that the Constitution should be amended to include the "Second Bill of Rights." But he did believe that social and economic rights ought to be seen as a defining part of our political culture...

Cass R. Sunstein, the Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago Law School and the author of more than a dozen books, including After the Rights Revolution, Designing Democracy and most recently, The Cost-Benefit State.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/sunstein-economicsecurity.html

The Second Bill of Rights was a proposal made by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944 to suggest that the nation had come to recognize, and should now implement, a second bill of rights. Roosevelt did not argue for any change to the United States Constitution; he argued that the second bill of rights was to be implemented politically, not by federal judges.

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


Discussions abound in papers in the FDR Library about whether or when to propose a constitutional amendment to support New Deal legislation. A letter of May 29, 1935, from Felix Frankfurter to FDR proposed to "Let the Court strike down any or all of them next winter or spring <1936> especially by a divided court. Then propose a constitutional amendment giving the national Government adequate power to cope with national economic and industrial problems." Roosevelt himself was persuaded that the amendment process was too slow and difficult. In his letter to Frankfurter of February 9, 1937 (written four days after the submission of his "court-packing" plan), FDR counted the chances of achieving a two-thirds vote in this session" as no better than "fifty-fifty." He also saw the ratification process possibly extending into the 1940 national election. So he chose not to seek a constitutional amendment...

EXPLICIT AND AUTHENTIC ACTS: AMENDING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, 1776-1995 by David E. Kyvig. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1996. 604 pp. Cloth $55.00. Reviewed by Donald W. Jackson, Department of Political Science, Texas Christian University.

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/kyvig.htm


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. she's still arguing that he did - she must have channeled FDR's spirit
Edited on Sun Jan-01-06 08:14 PM by wyldwolf
..and asked him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #4
20. And what has that got to do with the price of tea in China
There's nothing in what you linked to calling for a Constitutional amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
6. Is there an issue for discussion other than which poster's right or wrong?
Hi, I read the exchanges your OP continues from the earlier thread, and thought the FDR info was really interesting, from all the posters involved. But the sniping really distracts from it all.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bushclipper Donating Member (297 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. the way political myths are born
Is the repetition of erroneous and inaccurate information.

We see it on DU all the time.

From the repeated claims that Perot cost GHW Bush the 1992 election to simplified accusations that the DLC have caused Democratic losses from 1994 to the present.

I found this thread to be quite helpful in revealing how someone is obviously wrong in a discussion yet will continue a pattern of denial in an effort to either save face or perpetuate a myth - even a new one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
handsignals4theblind Donating Member (90 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
10.  Who FDR- that old MAson and Council of Foreign Relations member?
Guess who got rich from all the goverment borrowing to expand the Public Sector?-His uncle served on the original Federal Reserve Board--and FDR worked on Wall STreet for 11 companies before being Prez!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #7
19. Isn't that the truth.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
8. He certainly did call for the Supreme Court to be changed
I think he wanted a law for this but he wanted the ability to appoint one Supreme Court Justice for every one which was over 70 at the time he made the proposal. Only the opposition of the Senate and a timely switch in the court's decisions stopped that. Roosevelt isn't a great model for moderation about changing the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spaniard Donating Member (157 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
11. the truly sad thing is
the two in denial have now resorted to personal attacks in the other thread. Typical. can't make your point, attack attack attack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Yeah, I noticed how only one side was engaging in personal attacks.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
12. Thank you for at least starting a separate thread on this
instead of continuing with your bizzare hijacking of a completely unrelated thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. unfortunately for you, you're wrong
I made a post showing how anyone, including FDR, might be considered the "lesser of two evils" in a response to a post stating Clinton was the "lesser of two evils."

It was the bizarre denial of established fact from the two in question that hijacked the thread
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. I won't argue with you.
I'll let this thread stay on topic. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. well, good. But you've noticed
that the other parties haven't stopped by to make their "it's my way because I say so" case.

Maybe they will. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. I didn't hijack my own thread .. YOU DID
g'bye...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. did anyone accuse you of hijacking your own thread?
But since you're here, kindly provide some evidence of your claim that FDR wanted a constitutional amendment.

g'bye...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC