Revisiting the Equal Rights Amendment

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by bradl, Mar 22, 2017.

  1. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #1
    Nice little pickle that has come up today. But first some background.

    Of the 33 amendments to the US Constitution that have been proposed, 27 have been ratified by 3/4 of the State legislatures, per Article 5 of the US Constitution (the other alternative being a constitutional convention being called, where the ratifying conventions of 3/4 of the States must ratify the amendment).

    One of those six that have not been ratified by 3/4 of the States, is the Equal Rights Amendment, proposed in 1923. From Wiki:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

    The actual text of the Amendment:

    Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

    Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.[2][3]


    Now, while the ERA had not been ratified by the deadline in question, that does not mean that the proposal is gone. Should it be ratified by 3/4 of the States, the proposal heads back again to Congress.

    Enter Nevada. Today, they announced that it would be the 36th State to ratify the ERA:

    http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/nev...hts-amendment-decades-past-deadline/678419418

    http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/p...ual-rights-amendment-45th-anniversary-passage

    Why is being #36 important? Well, back to Wiki, regarding those who rescinded ratification:

    Bold for emphasis. If Nebraska didn't rescind the resolution, and the veto from Kentucky holds up, that would be 38 states. Furthermore, while Article 1, Section 7 states that all federal legislation before becoming law must be presented to the POTUS for signature into law or veto, Article 5 has no such provision or requirement for Constitutional amendments approved by Congress or federal convention.

    That means that should Kentucky and Nebraska go through, Trump would be constitutionally bound to provide equal rights to all of those "nasty" women he railed against during his campaign.

    And there isn't a single thing he can do about it, for a veto can not stop a Constitutional Amendment.

    BL.
     
  2. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #2
    You would have to find someone who would have standing to sue the government to sort out if Congress actually can set a deadline for the ratifications as well as sorting out if the rescinded ratifications are still valid or not, and who would that be? If the deadline holds up in the courts then it would still have to pass Congress again, which isn't likely at this point.
     
  3. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #3
    That sorta already happened.

    On December 23, 1981, in Idaho v. Freeman, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho ruled that the rescissions—all of which occurred before the original 1979 ratification deadline—were valid and that the ERA's deadline extension was unconstitutional.[59] The National Organization for Women appealed both rulings.

    However, On October 4, 1982, in NOW v. Idaho, 459 U.S. 809 (1982), the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the ruling in Idaho v. Freeman and declared the entire matter moot on the grounds that the ERA was dead for the reason given by the Administrator of General Services that the ERA had not received the required number of ratifications (38), so that "the Amendment has failed of adoption no matter what the resolution of the legal issues presented here."[60][61]

    So if brought up again, a deadline and extension of a deadline could hold up in court.

    I agree on the validity of the ratifications and if those votes would have to be taken again.. that could be up for a legal challenge. There is no precedent for that. But there also isn't anything in the Constitution stating that a separate federal convention or legislative vote to occur for the same amendment each time. In other words, if this proposal came up in 1923 and didn't get ratified, there's nothing saying that the votes for the states to ratify wouldn't be applied to the proposal in, for example 1935, 1944, 1956, and again in 1978.

    That's what makes this interesting. Yes, a lot of cards have to fall into the right places, but there is no precedent for any of this. That's what makes SCOTUS really important now.

    BL.
     
  4. flyinmac macrumors 68030

    flyinmac

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Location:
    United States
    #4
    Equality means treated the same. And being totally indifferent to any unique or less common features that one might have.

    The reality is that if everyone is 100% equal, then no race or gender will receive special assistance. Special assistance programs essentially use racial and gender discrimination to provide services to specific people because they are women or African-American, etc.

    If we are all 100% equal, then there cannot be special rules that grant advancement opportunities to specific genders and races.

    There are numerous "African-American" organizations and "Women's" organizations that would suddenly become illegal because they do not provide their services to men or Caucasian. And therefore men and Caucasians are prevented from seeking the same help to get into programs, colleges, or employment opportunities.

    The fact is, true 100% equality rules would primarily benefit white males. As they are the ones who are excluded by BOTH race and gender from pretty much every program designed to help those who are less fortunate.

    And nobody but white males really wants 100% equality. Because, the other races and genders like being able to call upon the programs and special assistance rules for their race and gender to seek advancement opportunities.

    I think 100% blindness to gender and race would be excellent. People are people. They should all have the same chance. And they should each have to work just as hard to achieve what they want.

    A number of good people have spent their lives fighting hard just to survive. Struggling just to eat. And working hard every minute of the day. Only to be continually stepped upon.

    And while it's great that there are programs out there helping some people. It would be better if none of the programs required you to be female or African-American or some other race to obtain their help.

    For the above reasons, it is unlikely that any law establishing true equality will ever exist. Because if everyone is equal, it will undo everything that women's rights activists and minority groups have spent years fighting for.
     
  5. R.Perez macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #5

    This is absolute hogwash
     
  6. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #6
    Bradl. Thanks. Occasionally I come on to PRSI and actually learn something. This is one of those times. Cheers!
     
  7. yellowscreen macrumors regular

    yellowscreen

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2015
    #7
    Actually, it's brilliant
     
  8. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #8
    No. It's tone-deaf. I understand the point(s) - I live in Portland OR for christ's sake - but it's just wrong frankly.
     
  9. yellowscreen macrumors regular

    yellowscreen

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2015
    #9
    No, actually it's exactly what's happening. It's called positive discrimination and it's a most popular proof around the world of american liberal idiocy. That and transgender laws
     
  10. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #10
    Well, that depends on your point-of-view. Some people look at the extension of rights and privileges to those who haven't traditionally had them (eg: minorities/LGBT) as an erosion of their rights and privileges - as if it was a zero-sum game. There are (imperfect) laws out there to address inequality because we generally suck at as a species.
     
  11. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #11
    If poor whites are to get a bigger say in the community you'll need affirmative action. Just saying.
     
  12. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #12
    Doesn't the Equal Protection Clause already accomplish this?
     
  13. yellowscreen macrumors regular

    yellowscreen

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2015
    #13
    The 'rights' as a word and a concept has been erroded. Thats the problem, the inflation of 'rights'. Luckily, all that ******** came to a screeching halt. Hopefully, for eternity.
     
  14. JayMysterio macrumors 6502

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge
    #14
    I suppose that would be a matter of perception. If you've always had rights from day one, it could be seen that others gaining the some of the same rights finally as some kind of erosion. If you've only relatively recently gained some of those same rights you might see it as a "about ### #@## time" thing, and want to keep them.

    I would ask though, if one sees others gaining some of the same or equal rights as a problem or unfair. What does that say about them? Do they need the system to deny rights to others for them to see things as fair?
     
  15. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #15
    How has Trump removed or suggested/proposed to remove rights from Women? I have asked this on many other threads and no one will answer me.
     
  16. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #16
    With the ERA you can kiss goodbye to many protections for women, even stuff like maternity leave. That's why many minority groups don't like it.
     
  17. BeeGood macrumors 68000

    BeeGood

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Location:
    Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
    #17
    Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already cover this? Or is there something more in the ERA?
     
  18. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #18
    Deflection and victim playing noted.

    Who said that Trump "removed" rights from Women? All I said was that Trump would be constitutionally bound to protect the rights of women; the very gender he disparaged throughout his entire presidential campaign, and that there would be nothing he could do about it.

    Here you go.

    http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/faq.htm#q10

    Bold for emphasis.

    BL.
     
  19. BeeGood macrumors 68000

    BeeGood

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Location:
    Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
    #19
  20. tgara macrumors 6502a

    tgara

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    Somewhere in the Delta Quadrant
    #20
    It does, and it's actually broader than the ERA, which only addresses sex. What about sexual orientation or gender? The gays and transsexuals should be upset and holding demonstrations about how such non-inclusive amendments can even be suggested! :rolleyes:
     
  21. yellowscreen macrumors regular

    yellowscreen

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2015
    #21
    it's not a problem of spreading the existing ones, its about creating new 'rights' and changing the definition and meaning of existing rights to encompass imaginary social groups. the definition of inflation.
     
  22. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #22
    I wonder - and I am going into a sci-fi hypothetical here - if the ERA amendment can be used to prohibit abortions by loophole.
    Congress passes a law that limits - somehow - abortion for MEN.
    Goes to the SCOTUS as discriminatory by sex
     
  23. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #23
    Which imaginary social groups are we talking about here?
     
  24. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #24
    This would be something that could be tested at SCOTUS, and finally put to bed who/what defines the gender they are. regardless, since this addresses sex, anyone who is transgender would still be equally covered. Hence, no reason/excuse for North Carolina's SB2.

    BL.
     
  25. flyinmac macrumors 68030

    flyinmac

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Location:
    United States
    #25
    I remember that back in the 80's or 90's there was some news story that published results claiming that it was possible for males to carry children to full term and be pregnant.

    I believe it said something about implantation of either a fertilized egg or perhaps a fetus into a males abdomen or side.

    My memory on it is fuzzy as I read it a long time ago in a newspaper. So I won't pretend to have all the details right.

    But, apparently somebody was working on it. And I'm sure somewhere that someone is probably still pondering it.

    So, I suppose they could pass a law that stated that if a male became pregnant, that they couldn't abort it.

    Consider that a woman can have an abortion and not be sent to prison for murder. But if a male somehow causes a woman to lose her unborn child (such as assault or even accidental injury) the male will me charged with murder or involuntary manslaughter for the death of the unborn child.

    So, the laws already lean towards favoring women killing their unborn children, while prosecuting males for the same action.

    I realize that there is a difference between a woman choosing to kill her child, and someone else doing it without her consent.

    But it is interesting to consider that an unborn child is not considered a living being if a woman wants to kill it. But that same unborn child has full recognition as a living human being entitled to life if a man kills it.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 23, 2017 ---
    The simple route would be to just eliminate any legal recognition of gender. There is no male or female.

    Likewise, we could eliminate any and all legal recognition of races.

    Then eliminate all laws which refer to the now unrecognized gender and race identity.

    Now we are all simply human beings. With the same rights, same opportunities, and same restrictions.

    I'd vote for that change.
     

Share This Page