Talk:Second Bill of Rights

Factual Error

It seems that we have taken a factual error present in "Capitalism: A Love Story" and taken it onto this wiki as our own. Liberalviewer, who we have used as a reference on the site before, particularly his playlist documenting Fox News bias, has called question into Michael Moore's claim that the Second Bill of Rights was meant to take the form of Constutional Amendments here: (http://youtu.be/fthfkEOD2xY?t=3s). Does anybody have any objections or concerns about this assessment made, because, if true, I have some edits to make on this article to remove mentions of constitutional amendments and a mention of the factual error in the mention of Michael Moore. 98.231.81.43 (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you should probably do that. Though it's interesting that FDR would even call it a 'Bill of Rights' if it wasn't intended to be legislated. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I am honestly not surprised that he would refer to it as such since there have been similar uses of the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence in American social reform movements before FDR, with one notable example being the "Declaration of Sentiments". If I were to make a guess on why this is done enough that I am aware of the tendency, it is that using the language and structure of the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights to frame the social reform makes it both revolutionary and patriotic. It is a balance in that it is basically stating that it will have society revolutionized but will still involve the US government being the same one established under the US Constitution. Collectively referring to what would have been a sweeping wave of legislation meant to take care of the eight different points as the "Second Bill of Rights" would be similar to the "New Deal" or the "Great Society" in the intent and structure but with a name that could make it easier to rally support. Crow7878 (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)