Paul Moreno, at History News Network, discusses the left’s misuse of rights language as a means of disestablishing the natural rights enshrined in the US Constitution. It’s as if the left discovered a way to apply Gresham’s Economic Law to Constitutional Law: newly invented bogus rights inevitably quickly replace real natural rights in circulation.
In a 2001 interview on Chicago public radio, Obama lamented that â€œthe Supreme Court never ventured into the issue of the redistribution of wealth.â€ The problem, he said, was that the court â€œdidnâ€™t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitutionâ€¦ that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberty.â€
In this perhaps unguarded moment, Obama became one of the few liberal politicians candid enough to admit that the Constitution poses a fundamental obstacle to their agenda.
This is a popular theory in academic circles. It is the fundamental argument of Cass Sunstein, a colleague of Obamaâ€™s at the University of Chicago Law School (now on his way to Harvard), who is often mentioned as an Obama adviser and potential Supreme Court nominee, and the author of The Second Bill of Rights: FDRâ€™s Unfinished Revolution and Why We need it More than Ever.
The second bill of rights idea derived from two famous speeches that Franklin Delano Roosevelt gaveâ€”one at the San Francisco Commonwealth Club during the 1932 campaign and his 1944 annual message to Congress. In the Commonwealth Club address, he spoke of the advent of â€œenlightened administration,â€ which would redistribute resources in accordance with an â€œeconomic declaration of rights.â€ In his 1944 message to Congress, Roosevelt said that â€œour rights to life and libertyâ€â€”the negative liberty to which Obama referred, had â€œproved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.â€ He claimed that â€œIn our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights.â€ This bill of rights included the right to a job, the right to food and recreation, the right to adequate farm prices, the right to a decent home, the right to medical care, and the right to a good education.
Of course, these are not â€œrightsâ€ at allâ€”not in the sense that the framers and ratifiers of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution used the term–but entitlements. From the founding until the twentieth century, the American regime assumed that governmentâ€™s purpose was to secure pre-existing natural rightsâ€”such life, liberty, property, or association. Everyone can exercise such rights simultaneously; nobodyâ€™s exercise of his own rights limits anyone elseâ€™s similar exercise. Your right to life or to work or to vote does not take anything away from anyone else. We can all pursue happiness at once. Entitlements, on the other hand, require someone else to provide me with the substantive good that the exercise of rights pursues. The right to work, for example, is fundamentally different from the right (entitlement) to a job; the right to marry does not entitle me to a spouse; the right to free speech does not entitle me to an audience.
The New Deal is often described as a â€œconstitutional revolution.â€ In fact, it was much more than that. It involved a rejection not just of the structure and principles of the Constitution, but those of the theory of natural rights in the Declaration of Independenceâ€”that, as Jefferson put it, governments are instituted in order to secure our rights. Roosevelt envisioned not a new constitution, but a new idea of what Sunstein calls â€œa nationâ€™s constitutive commitments.â€
As to this problem, Sunstein says that â€œThe best response to those who believe that the second bill of rights does not protect rights at all is just this: unembarrassed evasion.â€