Equal Rights Amendment

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,504
Talk about a blast from the past!

A Rebuke to Trump, a Century in the Making

The fight centers on Illinois, where the State Senate recently passed a billto ratify the E.R.A. If the State House of Representatives also passes the legislation — supporters hope to see a vote next month, and are cautiously optimistic about the outcome — then Illinois will become the 37th state to ratify the amendment.

Approval by just one more state would bring the measure to the three-quarters threshold required for constitutional amendments. There are a handful of good possibilities, including Florida, Virginia and Utah.
The editorial explains why things might not be that simple, but getting to thirty-eight states might prompt the five states that purportedly rescinded their votes to rescind their rescission.

:watch:
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,485
The Supreme Court is very clear. There is no separate but equal. So if there’s a equal rights amendment gender based bathrooms, fitting rooms , and locker rooms would immediately become unconstitutional.
 

Spun Silver

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,547
The Supreme Court is very clear. There is no separate but equal. So if there’s a equal rights amendment gender based bathrooms, fitting rooms , and locker rooms would immediately become unconstitutional.
What a stupid way to define equality. Equality does not have to mean sameness.
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,504
The Equal Rights Amendment May Pass Now. It’s Only Been 96 Years.
Virginia’s incoming Democratic leaders have promised to take up the amendment immediately when the legislature convenes in January — and given that it failed in the Virginia Senate by only one vote when the body was under Republican control, passage is almost assured....

The biggest question now is whether Congress will remove the deadline — or whether the deadline was ever enforceable to begin with. The Democratic-led House held a hearing in April on a resolution to repeal the deadline and is likely to pass it. The next step is a House Judiciary Committee markup, which has not been scheduled, but which advocates are expecting to take place within weeks.
This should be interesting.

:watch:
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,485
There is no constitutional limit on ratification. If it’s ratified it is added. End of story
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
11,611
One thing is sure, Moscow Mitch will not allow any bill to be considered in the Senate unless Trump is ok with it.

Which leads me to ask, given his huge deficit with women, would Trump consider it? I am thinking absolutely not, given his evangelical base.
 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,658
It's actually in many churches' doctrine that equality between men and women is sinful. So I'm thinking no.
 

MacMadame

My G.O.A.T is better than your G.O.A.T.
Messages
31,174
There is no constitutional limit on ratification. If it’s ratified it is added. End of story
This is not 100% accurate.

In the case of the ERA, the original amendment has a deadline of 7 years and then it was extended to 1982. Right now constitutional scholars disagree on whether it's too late or not:

 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,485
Then why is there a bill pending to get rid of the time limit?
Because what if for some reason the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the law on ratification being more important than the previous Supreme Court ruling saying ratifications can go on forever! In fact another ruling says that. That when congress did give a deadline that means they did want to have an end date and that should take priority.
 

once_upon

New condo owner
Messages
13,160
Ha, ha, ha, ha. Republicans and/or the current Supreme Courr passing laws or upholding anything/rights for women? Ha, ha, ha, ha.

I have some swamp land in Florida or flooded plains in Iowa up for sale.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,282
Because what if for some reason the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the law on ratification being more important than the previous Supreme Court ruling saying ratifications can go on forever! In fact another ruling says that. That when congress did give a deadline that means they did want to have an end date and that should take priority.
In other words, it's not as simple as you said it would be ;)
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,504
Wow that's going to disappoint a lot of people. But I've always thought that myself.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a wise woman.

I hope that there will be a new President in January and that that person will call for a new E.R.A. in his or her first State of the Union Address.
 

MacMadame

My G.O.A.T is better than your G.O.A.T.
Messages
31,174
That's what I think. So whenever people got excited that some new state has ratified it, I couldn't get excited because I didn't think it counted.
 

ilovepaydays

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,142
WAIT. The latest Amendment (27th - Congressional salaries) that was ratified in the 1990s took 200+ years!

I remember learning about the U-Texas student that led the effort to get it done wrote a research paper about it and he got a “C”. The grade motivated him to campaign to get it ratified. After it was ratified, the professor got the grade changed to an “A+”. :lol:
 

MacMadame

My G.O.A.T is better than your G.O.A.T.
Messages
31,174
The House voted to rescind the deadline for the ERA. Not sure what will happen now.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information