What do you think?
Rate this book
The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution -- And Why We Need It More Than Ever
"In The Second Bill of Rights. Case R. Sunstein brings back from obscurity the greatest speech of the greatest president of the twentieth century, and shows that many of the landmark legislative achievements of the past seventy years stem from Roosevelt's proposal for a second Bill of Rights. Yet these remain the subject of passionate debate." Using FDR's speech as a launching point, Sunstein examines the "legal realist" school of thought, embodied most clearly in the work of the legal theorist Robert Halen, who refuted laissez-faire economics by showing that no one really opposes "government intervention." Sunstein then describes how Roosevelt gradually developed the idea of a second Bill of Rights; and asks why these rights, which were almost quietly adopted under the Warren Court, have never attained the status FDR sought for them. The reason, Sunstein maintains, is not anything unique to American culture or temperament but a particular historical accident: the very narrow election of Richard Nixon to the presidency in 1968, and the conservative Supreme Court appointments that resulted. Sunstein contends that the Second Bill of Rights deserves to be treated as a statement of the nation's deepest commitments - a twentieth-century analogue to the Declaration of Independence.
308 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2004
36 people are currently reading
517 people want to read
About the author
Cass R. Sunstein
170 books742 followersCass R. Sunstein is an American legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics, who currently is the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration. For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School, where he continues to teach as the Harry Kalven Visiting Professor. Sunstein is currently Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where he is on leave while working in the Obama administration.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
March 5, 2021
This is essentially a collection of three books in one; firstly a history of the New Deal programs and President F.D. Roosevelt's thinking about them, including a proposal of "Second Bill of Rights" from FDR's SOTU speech from 1944; secondly a history of economic and social rights litigation in SCOTUS in the decades following the FDR period, and lastly, a study of the possibilities for judicial review in influencing priority and agenda-setting through constitutional commitments for social and economic rights. Each of them is interesting by itself and together they make a compelling case for a topic I must admit I am passionate about.
Sunstein's writing style is clear and enjoyable, albeit sometimes repetitive on some topics if one has read his other books or articles of him. He tries to make an argument, spends a lot of time on it, but does not finish it at great length (in the final chapter he looks at two cases from the South African Constitutional Court and partially one from the NY Court of Appeals, but I would appreciate a longer discussion on his proposed solution to the issue). For most readers, however, this would not be an issue and in case you are interested in a way that courts can play a role in keeping the government accountable for social and economic policy comittments, I definitelly recommend this book.
Sunstein's writing style is clear and enjoyable, albeit sometimes repetitive on some topics if one has read his other books or articles of him. He tries to make an argument, spends a lot of time on it, but does not finish it at great length (in the final chapter he looks at two cases from the South African Constitutional Court and partially one from the NY Court of Appeals, but I would appreciate a longer discussion on his proposed solution to the issue). For most readers, however, this would not be an issue and in case you are interested in a way that courts can play a role in keeping the government accountable for social and economic policy comittments, I definitelly recommend this book.
October 19, 2020
Honestly so much of this is relevant, especially now. This was a really good read — especially the chapters about why the U.S. has failed thus far to provide a second bill of rights.
January 19, 2009
I so looked forward to reading this book by Cass R. Sunstein. I loved FDR, our best president so far, especially his New Deal programs like the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the Federal Transient Service. FDR's ideas are now back on the front burner with our economic turmoil. So, it was sad to actually crack open the binding of this book and see that what was inside didn't live up to its exciting topic and great subtitle.
The book could have been edited down to a lengthy article for a weekly news magazine. It's repetitive throughout and sometimes includes stories that are more about praise of FDR than about his stated topic of a push on economic, social, and cultural rights (ESC). The book wasn't meant to be a biography of FDR, and that's a good thing since it fails there. There's also sloppy editing, e.g. claiming Lake Shore Drive (in Chicago) was built by the WPA (p. 47) and then two pages later, claims that the Public Works Administration was responsible for that same project.
The author has a poor grasp of some important issues. He defines American Exceptionalism as "the absence of a significant socialist or even a social democratic movement in the United States" (p.106). While that may be a manifestation he attributes to this concept, American Exceptionalism is simply a theory that states the US differs qualitatively from other nations by way of its beliefs, its maturation, its ideals or its composition. The term was introduced by Tocqueville. His definition, without attribution or explanation, is simply incorrect. Another example is the "Rule of Law." Sunstein has fetishized this concept into something much more than what it is, and also fails to explore that once law is created, how it is applied to different people and groups can subvert the original intent.
This two examples are illustrative of the work overall. He uses them to further his own argument, without looking at any other data that might cast doubt on his interpretation. Another example is his "prescient" ability to decide, without any doubt in his mind, how people who were not appointed to the Supreme Court during the Nixon Administration, would have adjudicated cases if they'd been on the Court. He blames America's turning away from FDR's conception of ESC rights on people Nixon appointed to the Court. His logic is that the Court was moving towards accepting ESC rights as US rights, but that the Court backpedaled under Nixon's new picks. He claims that if Hubert Humphrey had won, his appointees to the Court would have enshrined ESC rights and the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, it's impossible to predict, with 100% accuracy, how justices will decide. The Supreme Court (and lower courts) are replete with nominees chosen for their ideological purity who go against the views for which they were supposedly chosen. It'd be one thing for Sunstein to say that the Court may have been different, but he stretches belief with his certainty.
Finally, on a more personal note, I take issue with his unfettered faith in free trade as the panacea for all that ails America, and the world. Second, he offers simplistic views suggesting that new rights extended by the government will undermine individual incentive and motivation. Finally, he's opposed to the living wage movement, claiming that raising wages for all to a "livable" level will only lead to greater joblessness as companies hire fewer workers.
If you're interested in a good book that covers some of these topics, especially homelessness and how FDR approached it (which treads into these ESC rights), check out Kenneth Kusmer's "Down and Out, On the Road: The Homeless in American History."
The book could have been edited down to a lengthy article for a weekly news magazine. It's repetitive throughout and sometimes includes stories that are more about praise of FDR than about his stated topic of a push on economic, social, and cultural rights (ESC). The book wasn't meant to be a biography of FDR, and that's a good thing since it fails there. There's also sloppy editing, e.g. claiming Lake Shore Drive (in Chicago) was built by the WPA (p. 47) and then two pages later, claims that the Public Works Administration was responsible for that same project.
The author has a poor grasp of some important issues. He defines American Exceptionalism as "the absence of a significant socialist or even a social democratic movement in the United States" (p.106). While that may be a manifestation he attributes to this concept, American Exceptionalism is simply a theory that states the US differs qualitatively from other nations by way of its beliefs, its maturation, its ideals or its composition. The term was introduced by Tocqueville. His definition, without attribution or explanation, is simply incorrect. Another example is the "Rule of Law." Sunstein has fetishized this concept into something much more than what it is, and also fails to explore that once law is created, how it is applied to different people and groups can subvert the original intent.
This two examples are illustrative of the work overall. He uses them to further his own argument, without looking at any other data that might cast doubt on his interpretation. Another example is his "prescient" ability to decide, without any doubt in his mind, how people who were not appointed to the Supreme Court during the Nixon Administration, would have adjudicated cases if they'd been on the Court. He blames America's turning away from FDR's conception of ESC rights on people Nixon appointed to the Court. His logic is that the Court was moving towards accepting ESC rights as US rights, but that the Court backpedaled under Nixon's new picks. He claims that if Hubert Humphrey had won, his appointees to the Court would have enshrined ESC rights and the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, it's impossible to predict, with 100% accuracy, how justices will decide. The Supreme Court (and lower courts) are replete with nominees chosen for their ideological purity who go against the views for which they were supposedly chosen. It'd be one thing for Sunstein to say that the Court may have been different, but he stretches belief with his certainty.
Finally, on a more personal note, I take issue with his unfettered faith in free trade as the panacea for all that ails America, and the world. Second, he offers simplistic views suggesting that new rights extended by the government will undermine individual incentive and motivation. Finally, he's opposed to the living wage movement, claiming that raising wages for all to a "livable" level will only lead to greater joblessness as companies hire fewer workers.
If you're interested in a good book that covers some of these topics, especially homelessness and how FDR approached it (which treads into these ESC rights), check out Kenneth Kusmer's "Down and Out, On the Road: The Homeless in American History."
December 20, 2014
Ask a modern American what she thinks of “the right to a useful and remunerative job.” Or of “the right of every family to a decent home.” Or of “the right to adequate medical care.” Certainly, she is likely to say, these are all fine things. But rights? The idea is positively foreign (or worse, downright Scandinavian). She may be surprised to discover that these words were spoken by one of America’s greatest presidents.
In The Second Bill of Rights, Cass Sunstein gives new life to the kinds of social and economic rights that Franklin D. Roosevelt advocated 70 years ago. The book is two things at once. First, it is a book about the history of an idea—about why the idea has withered in its country of origin, and why it has flourished around the world. Second, it is a book of advocacy—about why contemporary Americans should adopt the second bill, not in spite of their values, but because of them. Sunstein’s argument is clear and convincing on both fronts, but is not without a few shortcomings.
Why has modern America given up on the second bill? For Sunstein, the answer is simple: the election of President Nixon in 1968. For a time during the 1960s, the Supreme Court seemed sympathetic to the idea that social and economic rights were protected by the Constitution. Then, after a series of judicial appointments following the 1968 election, the Court changed course. The second bill quickly fell out of favour and has yet to reemerge. There are competing explanations to this simple story. Some people think that there is something distinctive about American culture that is hostile to social and economic rights. Others think that such rights, while appealing in principle, are unenforceable in practice. Sunstein skilfully rebuts these alternate explanations. The Nixon story seems most plausible.
Why have social and economic rights enjoyed such popularity abroad? On this question, Sunstein is less convincing. He says little about the role of Eleanor Roosevelt in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its impact on later agreements and constitutions. He seems to suggest that there is a direct line from Franklin Roosevelt, to the Universal Declaration, to the modern constitutions of countries such as India and South Africa. But, as Sunstein himself acknowledges, Roosevelt was not the first to propose social and economic rights, and some European constitutions included such guarantees long before Roosevelt’s presidency. The extent of Roosevelt’s influence abroad is not made entirely clear.
So much for history. Why does all this matter today? The question can be divided into two parts: What are the objections to adopting the second bill? and What is the case in favour of the second bill? Sunstein succeeds brilliantly in addressing the former question, while neglecting the latter almost entirely.
Critics of the second bill sometimes claim that the Constitution protects only negative rights—that it merely places limits on what the government may do. Social and economic rights, on the other hand, require positive government intervention. Sunstein shows that this is nonsense. The right to free speech, for example, requires the government to maintain public spaces, and if necessary, to provide protection for people with unpopular views. Civil and political rights require government intervention just as much as social and economic rights. Other critics claim that the second bill is opposed to that quintessential American value: freedom. It is fashionable these days to think that freedom means freedom from government intrusion. But, as Roosevelt observed, “necessitous men are not free men.” Far from being opposed to freedom, the second bill is essential for ensuring freedom.
Why, then, do we need the second bill “now more than ever”? Although the question appears in the subtitle, Sunstein never provides a direct answer. Perhaps the omission seems particularly evident given the events in the ten years since the publication of the book. America has experienced the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression—the event that spurred Roosevelt to advocate the second bill. Inequality has been rising for decades, and seems only to be accelerating. And like the Supreme Court of the 1930s, the current Court seems entirely willing to oppose social and economic legislation on constitutional grounds, as we have seen in its response to Medicaid expansion. Contemporary America seems much more like Roosevelt’s America than it did ten years ago.
Cass Sunstein’s The Second Bill of Rights is an extremely important book. His counterarguments against those who oppose the second bill are especially convincing. While the book is not without its shortcomings, these should not deter anyone from reading it. We need this book now, in 2014, more than ever.
In The Second Bill of Rights, Cass Sunstein gives new life to the kinds of social and economic rights that Franklin D. Roosevelt advocated 70 years ago. The book is two things at once. First, it is a book about the history of an idea—about why the idea has withered in its country of origin, and why it has flourished around the world. Second, it is a book of advocacy—about why contemporary Americans should adopt the second bill, not in spite of their values, but because of them. Sunstein’s argument is clear and convincing on both fronts, but is not without a few shortcomings.
Why has modern America given up on the second bill? For Sunstein, the answer is simple: the election of President Nixon in 1968. For a time during the 1960s, the Supreme Court seemed sympathetic to the idea that social and economic rights were protected by the Constitution. Then, after a series of judicial appointments following the 1968 election, the Court changed course. The second bill quickly fell out of favour and has yet to reemerge. There are competing explanations to this simple story. Some people think that there is something distinctive about American culture that is hostile to social and economic rights. Others think that such rights, while appealing in principle, are unenforceable in practice. Sunstein skilfully rebuts these alternate explanations. The Nixon story seems most plausible.
Why have social and economic rights enjoyed such popularity abroad? On this question, Sunstein is less convincing. He says little about the role of Eleanor Roosevelt in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its impact on later agreements and constitutions. He seems to suggest that there is a direct line from Franklin Roosevelt, to the Universal Declaration, to the modern constitutions of countries such as India and South Africa. But, as Sunstein himself acknowledges, Roosevelt was not the first to propose social and economic rights, and some European constitutions included such guarantees long before Roosevelt’s presidency. The extent of Roosevelt’s influence abroad is not made entirely clear.
So much for history. Why does all this matter today? The question can be divided into two parts: What are the objections to adopting the second bill? and What is the case in favour of the second bill? Sunstein succeeds brilliantly in addressing the former question, while neglecting the latter almost entirely.
Critics of the second bill sometimes claim that the Constitution protects only negative rights—that it merely places limits on what the government may do. Social and economic rights, on the other hand, require positive government intervention. Sunstein shows that this is nonsense. The right to free speech, for example, requires the government to maintain public spaces, and if necessary, to provide protection for people with unpopular views. Civil and political rights require government intervention just as much as social and economic rights. Other critics claim that the second bill is opposed to that quintessential American value: freedom. It is fashionable these days to think that freedom means freedom from government intrusion. But, as Roosevelt observed, “necessitous men are not free men.” Far from being opposed to freedom, the second bill is essential for ensuring freedom.
Why, then, do we need the second bill “now more than ever”? Although the question appears in the subtitle, Sunstein never provides a direct answer. Perhaps the omission seems particularly evident given the events in the ten years since the publication of the book. America has experienced the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression—the event that spurred Roosevelt to advocate the second bill. Inequality has been rising for decades, and seems only to be accelerating. And like the Supreme Court of the 1930s, the current Court seems entirely willing to oppose social and economic legislation on constitutional grounds, as we have seen in its response to Medicaid expansion. Contemporary America seems much more like Roosevelt’s America than it did ten years ago.
Cass Sunstein’s The Second Bill of Rights is an extremely important book. His counterarguments against those who oppose the second bill are especially convincing. While the book is not without its shortcomings, these should not deter anyone from reading it. We need this book now, in 2014, more than ever.
September 19, 2010
From the title, one could assume that the book was to lay out the second bill of rights that FDR talked about in 1944, why each is beneficial, and then why we need it. Instead, the rights are listed out before the 1st numbered page, followed by 9 chapters in two sections that bounce around from the writing of the constitution to Civili War to pre-Civil War to WWI to WWII to Sept. 11th and back again.
I would be lying if I said I read it word for word, because I could not contain my urge to jump forward. It is well written, but the author made an assumption that the reader knows nothing of the constitution and the bill of rights. He even goes so far as to explain why certain rights were needed. He also branched out into other countries constitutions, agreements, and proclamations. I appreciate the research and effort he makes, but sometimes having too much backstory is detrimental to the flow and intentions of a book. In this case the back story basically is the book. Honestly, I learned more about FDR's second bill of rights from Wikipedia.
In the book, the author discusses the difference between constitutional rights (things protected by the written constitution) and what he calls constitutive commitments (things that have become so ingrained in society that a radical shift would need to occur to get rid of them, like Social Security and free public education). What blew my mind though was the contradiction of the title itself. He essentially goes on to argue that many of FDR's second bill of rights have already become constitutive commitments and argues that they don't need to be made as amendments, Furthermore, he states that FDR wouldn't have wanted them to be amendments anyway, similar to things like social security and other facets of the New Deal.
Ok, so let me get this straight: we need FDR's second bill of rights more than ever, but we don't really need them because we already have most of them in place already as constitutive commitments? Right.
In the end, this book was not what I expected, which might be why I'm so harsh. FDR nor his bill of rights were even the focus for much of the book though, which grew tiresome. I will say that it was well written, well researched, well documented, and he did a great job in showing how FDR was not some liberal wackjob that the right wing try to portray him as. What Cass Sunstein did not do, however, was explain why we need FDR's second bill of rights more than ever; at least the ones that we don't already have.
I would be lying if I said I read it word for word, because I could not contain my urge to jump forward. It is well written, but the author made an assumption that the reader knows nothing of the constitution and the bill of rights. He even goes so far as to explain why certain rights were needed. He also branched out into other countries constitutions, agreements, and proclamations. I appreciate the research and effort he makes, but sometimes having too much backstory is detrimental to the flow and intentions of a book. In this case the back story basically is the book. Honestly, I learned more about FDR's second bill of rights from Wikipedia.
In the book, the author discusses the difference between constitutional rights (things protected by the written constitution) and what he calls constitutive commitments (things that have become so ingrained in society that a radical shift would need to occur to get rid of them, like Social Security and free public education). What blew my mind though was the contradiction of the title itself. He essentially goes on to argue that many of FDR's second bill of rights have already become constitutive commitments and argues that they don't need to be made as amendments, Furthermore, he states that FDR wouldn't have wanted them to be amendments anyway, similar to things like social security and other facets of the New Deal.
Ok, so let me get this straight: we need FDR's second bill of rights more than ever, but we don't really need them because we already have most of them in place already as constitutive commitments? Right.
In the end, this book was not what I expected, which might be why I'm so harsh. FDR nor his bill of rights were even the focus for much of the book though, which grew tiresome. I will say that it was well written, well researched, well documented, and he did a great job in showing how FDR was not some liberal wackjob that the right wing try to portray him as. What Cass Sunstein did not do, however, was explain why we need FDR's second bill of rights more than ever; at least the ones that we don't already have.
February 21, 2020
A great book if you want to justify tyranny. If you'd rather not live under one... not so much.
November 30, 2021
A fantastic breakdown of our 32nd President and his ideology, along with the ideology of his staff and America's Founding Fathers, such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.
His breakdown of the influence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on constitutions in Ukraine, South Africa, India, and in the European Charter highlights the need for America to rediscover it's roots as a forward thinking, innovative, and progressive force in the global community by fulfilling the principles outlined in our Preamble.
His breakdown of the influence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on constitutions in Ukraine, South Africa, India, and in the European Charter highlights the need for America to rediscover it's roots as a forward thinking, innovative, and progressive force in the global community by fulfilling the principles outlined in our Preamble.
July 7, 2017
The book is good because of the interesting factoids about FDR and his administrators. There's a lot of very frustrating moments of analysis where Sunstein is so close to a radical conclusion but pulls back. Sunstein is clearly excited about expanding the health and wealth of people through the second bill of rights, but his anti communism and excitement to preserve markets dilutes the power of his advocacy.
December 13, 2019
This is an inspiring and informative discussion of President Roosevelt’s theoretical and pragmatic vision of how to create a “second bill of rights.” This book is a must-read for anyone involved in the current Democratic Party as it illustrates the promise and peril of the type of programs now entering the mainstream of the Democratic Party’s platform.
November 12, 2016
Relevant for our Economic Times and Capitalistic Society
[Note: Review transitioned from Barnes & Noble website]
This book was well done. Although the book is labeled as a politics/history book, it covers quite a bit on law, including theoretical law.
That said, this book was not a light reading, it took me an extra day to get through it.
The author discusses the little known Second (Economic) Bill of Rights that Franklin Roosevelt proposed in 1944. That bill, in a basic sense, was to offer a simple form of economic security for the citizens of the United States obviously inspired by the Great Depression.
The bill was never implemented but it set the stage for the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which has influenced the creation of constitutions around the world that carry the Roosevelt legacy of economic security for those countries citizens and is mentioned in the book.
Because of the failure to pass the Economic Bill of Rights, people in the United States still do not make a decent living, lack access to a good education, etc.
With overwhelming evidence, the author discusses why this Bill of Rights should be implemented and how, as the author claims, it came close to being established. Regardless of the fact that some people will claim the program is socialist it is not, according to Cass Sunstein.
Something to think about after reading this book regards the economy itself. What if we had a Second Bill of Rights? Would we have had to deal with the current Great Recession?
This book probably is not for people with a right-leaning political preference.
[Note: Review transitioned from Barnes & Noble website]
This book was well done. Although the book is labeled as a politics/history book, it covers quite a bit on law, including theoretical law.
That said, this book was not a light reading, it took me an extra day to get through it.
The author discusses the little known Second (Economic) Bill of Rights that Franklin Roosevelt proposed in 1944. That bill, in a basic sense, was to offer a simple form of economic security for the citizens of the United States obviously inspired by the Great Depression.
The bill was never implemented but it set the stage for the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which has influenced the creation of constitutions around the world that carry the Roosevelt legacy of economic security for those countries citizens and is mentioned in the book.
Because of the failure to pass the Economic Bill of Rights, people in the United States still do not make a decent living, lack access to a good education, etc.
With overwhelming evidence, the author discusses why this Bill of Rights should be implemented and how, as the author claims, it came close to being established. Regardless of the fact that some people will claim the program is socialist it is not, according to Cass Sunstein.
Something to think about after reading this book regards the economy itself. What if we had a Second Bill of Rights? Would we have had to deal with the current Great Recession?
This book probably is not for people with a right-leaning political preference.
December 9, 2008
Sunstein (whom I hope will be Obama's appointees to Supreme Court as soon as one of those fogeys retires) re-visits a forgotten aspect of FDR's presidency, which had not only demonstrated how the country had come since the Depression, but also help to lay the foundation for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Many critics of the Second Bill of Rights - commitment to social and economic rights - have derided it as eroding the sense of individualism and work ethic (if you excuse the over-simplification). Others critique it on the basis of laissez-faire politics and economics. Sunstein defends the disadvantaged not only from a moral perspective, but also through a legal and constitutional approach, which is enlightening and so appropriate for our current station of politics. Thorough and very readable.
November 29, 2014
Great premise and well-written book about an often overlooked part of FDR's legacy. However, the book could have used a stronger structure and a bit more editing. It would have helped if the author (who ended up for a brief time in the Obama Administration) actually talked about why we need it now more than ever. He certainly was able to go into depth about the Constitution, but not much about the ills that currently plagued America at the time the book was written. Perhaps, this was intentional to make the book more timeless, but leaving it out for the most part injures the book.
Otherwise, liked the author's examination of why FDR ended up proclaiming the "Second Bill of Rights" and why America has rejected it up to this point. The book is definitely worth taking a look at, especially for those interested in the subject.
Otherwise, liked the author's examination of why FDR ended up proclaiming the "Second Bill of Rights" and why America has rejected it up to this point. The book is definitely worth taking a look at, especially for those interested in the subject.
August 4, 2021
I found this book to be in an unfortunate grey middle zone between being too wonky to be a breezy read, and not wonky enough to make me feel like I was well-informed on the 'second' Bill of Rights. I'm also not a big fan of Cass Sunstein overall, although he does make some excellent points in this book, and I'm glad he's drawing attention to some of the unfulfilled dreams of the Democratic Party and those on the left.
It's my belief that anyone who becomes a Democrat and runs for office believes in all of these things, and doesn't end up pursuing or even supporting them because of political concerns. As the political climate in the country moves to the left, it's time to start pushing some of these ideas, getting them into the political firmament, and make Democratic officeholders believe they can be passed.
It's my belief that anyone who becomes a Democrat and runs for office believes in all of these things, and doesn't end up pursuing or even supporting them because of political concerns. As the political climate in the country moves to the left, it's time to start pushing some of these ideas, getting them into the political firmament, and make Democratic officeholders believe they can be passed.
April 28, 2011
This is a great book, one that gets you thinking. Even if you don't agree with his ideas, it raises some tough questions.
It's amazing that something that's thought of as extremely left wing today was first brought up by one of our greatest presidents over 60 years ago.
The Second Bill of Rights, encompasses such wacky ideas as the right to education, health insurance, and a home. FDR wasn't so naive to think that there would be anyway to ensure everyone has those rights; money, laziness, the fact that life is just unfair sometimes can and would get in the way. Just the same though, just because you can't get 100% doesn't mean you should strive for it.
It's amazing that something that's thought of as extremely left wing today was first brought up by one of our greatest presidents over 60 years ago.
The Second Bill of Rights, encompasses such wacky ideas as the right to education, health insurance, and a home. FDR wasn't so naive to think that there would be anyway to ensure everyone has those rights; money, laziness, the fact that life is just unfair sometimes can and would get in the way. Just the same though, just because you can't get 100% doesn't mean you should strive for it.
April 10, 2015
Cass Sunstein's book on FDR and his proposals for a second bill of rights is interesting and well thought out. However, I would've liked to of seen some analysis of how the two South African constitutional court cases he discusses were implemented, as well as an analysis of how substantive provisions in state constitutions have been interpreted.
August 23, 2007
Sunstein's arguments on why we may have not gotten the second bill of rights are a bit oversimplified, but helpful in thinking legally about how to reintroduce them politically.
November 14, 2009
A must read.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews