In Regard to Ratifying the ERA

| November 2, 2018

When the Equal Rights Amendment was put into formal context of both language and legal status in 1972, it was in the form of a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In the original vote count, by 1977, the legislatures of 35 states had approved the amendment. Since then, two more states, Nevada in 2017 and Illinois in 2018, have voted to ratify the Amendment.

Only one more state is needed to pass the US Equal Rights Amendment. This article from NYT tells us that since Illinois voted to approve the Equal Rights Amendment at the federal level in May this year, there is only one more state needed to complete the process of full ratification, making the ERA a federal law.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/31/us/equal-rights-amendment-illinois.html

Phyllis Schlafly’s arguments included everyone using a common public restroom, and women being drafted. Well, okay, the unisex restroom thing has already been addressed and in regard to women being drafted, she forgot that the draft ended in 1973, which meant that men were only required to register with Selective Service to qualify for federal college loans.

I see nothing wrong with requiring the same thing of women, because from World War I  (and the Civil War) right up to the present, millions of women have been putting in their time voluntarily because they thought it was the right thing to do, and they still think that way.

So what is the issue again? Just what is wrong with being asked to put in some of your precious time serving your country? There are thousands of us girls doing it right now, some on the front lines, and many who went before, so get over whatever that nonsense is about ‘it’s a man’s world’ thing. Grow up.

There are 13 states left to make up a 38th state to ratify the ERA. Yes, it is well past the deadline, but there was one Amendment to the US Constitution that took 200 years to be ratified.  Something unexpected happened with a different amendment in 1992.

First, some history: Six months after the Constitution went into effect, James Madison offered 17 amendments to the founding document. Congress ultimately approved 12. By 1791, the states had ratified the first 10, which became known as the Bill of Rights.

One of Madison’s amendments continued to slowly work its way through the states more than 200 years after congressional approval. In May 1992, Michigan became the 38th state to ratify, making it the 27th Amendment, which says that salary increases for members of Congress do not go into effect until the term after they were approved.  – Article.

If it took 200 years for that salary increase amendment to become an Amendment to the US Constitution, then why shouldn’t this one have that approbation, as well? After all, it simply confirms what has already happened, mostly at the state levels, and requires only one more state to pass the ERA. There are 13 states from which to choose: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.

Once a 38th state has passed the Amendment, perhaps, per a 2013 report by Congressional Research Service, Congress could simply change the deadline. Congress could also replace the old ERA with a new, updated version and ask the states to ratify the newer version.

Whatever happens, it’s kind of a lame duck thing anyway, because so many moves forward have taken place since 1972. It would be symbolic that we do support the Law of the Land, the language of the U.S. Constitution, and we don’t just give lip service to it.

Category: "Your Tax Dollars At Work", Politics

37 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hondo

The NYT propagandist conveniently ignores the fact that 4 states have also rescinded their previous ratifications of the Amendment. While the courts have not considered this issue, I suspect that that fact – plus the fact that the extended Congressional deadline for ratification (1982) has passed by in excess of 35 years – would result in the SCOTUS telling proponents, “Sorry – try again.”

However, with the SCOTUS you never know just what they’re going to rule until you see the final opinion.

desert

Why? this equal rights crap has been a thorn in the countries side since its beginning and has been misused by offbreed groups imho

Mason

Hondo, if we learned anything from the Kavanaugh hearings, it’s that 35 years ago is as relevant as last week. 😉

David

As a friend who retired out at E-8 said ” I love women. I think everyone should own at least one.” (ducks)

NHSparky

Unless you’re running for Senator from Texas, and someone mentions your CONVICTIONS for burglary and DUI hit and run, then it’s ancient history and irrelevant.

AW1Ed

Sounds like the ERA is in the “Back to the Chalkboard” column. Not a bad concept, just needs a proponent to do a re-write and address the issues that caused those states to drop out.

SFC D

Do we really need the ERA, or do we need proper enforcement of current equality laws? Serious question. What is the actual gain of the ERA vs existing law?

Alberich

The main difference is exactly the sort of thing we’ve been discussing in the immigration threads. Existing law can be overturned by Congress; Constitutional language can’t.

Right now, as ex-PH2 notes, the amendment would be mostly symbolic; but if the next 60 years change our culture as much as the last 60 have, then we can’t predict what the electorate, or future Congresses, will want to do.

(I am sure there’d be troublemakers somewhere ready to file a suit saying “all military branches have to lower their standards until they’re 50% female” or “state schools have to let transgender players on the team of choice” or other silly stuff…”on account of sex” might be pressed as referring not just to men and women, but the 57 flavors of “gender identity,” depending on what the courts care to do. If you try that under a statutory authority and win, Congress can always fix the problem by fixing a statute. If it’s in the Constitution, it’s another problem.)

Alberich

P.S. – And if you’re as concerned about that next 60 years as I am, and Mr. Trump doesn’t prevail in the courts, let’s gear up for the fight over the Birthright Citizenship Amendment. Ex-PH2 does well to remind us that amendments aren’t impossibilities…they’re just a tough fight.

SFC D

Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking more along the lines that the amendment has more “teeth”, as in enforceability, your explanation makes more sense. Sometimes I need to have somebody draw me the picture.

Alberich

I should’ve added (as I did below)–it’s also true that the 14th Amendment guarantee of “equal protection” already applies somewhat to sex discrimination. (That’s why a federal court ordered VMI to become co-ed, for example.) An amendment could still raise the standard and keep it raised.

5th/77th FA

Agree. Was not aware that this wasn’t the law of the land. Am I to presume that the states have passed laws that covered this? Surprised that the current Socialist Democrat Candidate for Guvanator here in GA hasn’t jumped all over this in her campaign. But maybe, she is keeping a low profile cause she was a former state representative. She had Oprah and Will Ferrell stumping for her yesterday. The DNC crowd has poured millions into her coffers. I’d always, personally, felt that females were more equals than males. After all, they control 90% of the money and 100% of the “other thing.” (grin, dodges ExPH2’s thrown iron skillet)

2/17 Air Cav

ERA? Love the baseball talk. Not enough of it around here. Here’s one that Baseball Fan Hondo will love. Jacob deGrom had 32 starts for the Mets this past season and led the league with a 1.70 ERA. Must have had a helluva record, right? No. The poor SOB was 10-9. Amazing Mets indeed.

5th/77th FA

Yeah and the Red Sox won the World Series only to break the trophy by missing a thrown complimentary cold beer.

RGR 4-78

I would think they would be more worried about ratifying the designated hitter rule. 🙂

Hondo

You really want to see a pitcher who got let down by his team, check out the stats for Nolan Ryan’s 1987 season. He pitched 211+ innings; led the majors in strikeouts; and led the NL in both ERA and ERA+.

But he only placed 5th in NL Cy Young Award voting that year, while DeGrom will likely take this year’s CYA. Why?

Ryan’s 1987 W-L record: 8 wins, 16 losses (.333). His team, on the other hand, went 76-86 (.469).

“Hard luck” doesn’t even come close. “Snakebit” is more like it.

NHSparky

Talk about a guy who got jobbed. The Angels treated him like crap, and it showed.

1973–383 strikeouts that year, which will likely stand at least as long as I’m alive. Cy Young that year? Nope. 2nd.

Sometimes it’s real hard being an Angels fan.

USAFRetired

I’m waiting for this Constitutional Amendment

“Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives.”

5th/77th FA

What dahell you smoking/drinking? You will see the second coming or the freezing over of hell before that happens.

SFC D

One of the Pope’s chief advisors runs up to him, and says “Your Holiness,I have good news and bad news”. The Pope asks for the good news. The advisor says “Jesus has returned, he’s on the phone in your office”. The Pope rejoices at this marvelous news, and asks for the bad news. The advisor says: “He’s calling collect from Salt Lake City”.

Thank you, try the veal, and don’t forget to tip your waitress!

timactual

Text of the ERA;

“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.”

Can anyone name one of those rights that women do not currently enjoy?

AW1Ed

“…women would not be able to vote…”

Hmmm, Naw, never mind. Can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Next the Saudis will let them drive.

*grin*

desert

Women can’t vote? in WHAT states?

timactual

Again, what rights?

Alberich

There’s a matter of standards….the 14th Amendment guarantees “equal protection” of the laws, and the Supreme Court already reads that as applying against sex discrimination by the government.

(Discrimination by sex is reviewed under “intermediate scrutiny”…a less demanding standard than “strict scrutiny” as applied in race discrimination cases. That standard already applies to the states, since the 14th Amendment limits the states. “Intermediate scrutiny” was strict enough to require the integration of the Virginia Military Institute.)

So I suspect the main effect of the ERA would be to raise the standard of scrutiny rather than to guarantee some right that didn’t exist before, or might vanish at any minute.

2/17 Air Cav

Blanket equality under the law, which an amendment would accomplish, would mean that men and women could not be treated differently on account of their sex. (Why gender wasn’t used back then before Gender X is beyond me.) Are women and men treated differently under the law based solely on their sex. You tell me. Who must register with Selective Service and who is punished or penalized for failing to do so?

OWB

This is another of those things which, while it sounds like a pretty good idea, just isn’t a priority. National security is. Survival of the Republic is.

We have all managed to survive without it. Most of the stuff which it would have solved has already disappeared or evolved into something approximating equality. A nice thing to do someday to make certain that things don’t backslide? OK. Let’s talk about that one of these days.

As obnoxious as the screeching harpies are now, what would they become if the ERA was passed? Does anyone really think they would suddenly become LESS obnoxious?

Vorlock

You had better hope it is never ratified. Once the ERA passes Section 1 will be interpreted as “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex(ual idenifcation).”

Think I’m wrong? Who would have thought that Title IX would allow men to shower with young girls?

“OLYMPIA, Wash. — A controversial decision by Evergreen State College officials to let a transgender student to use the women’s locker room has brought up issues of civil rights, state laws and how best to protect children.
At the center of the issue is a 45-year-old student who was born a man but identifies as a woman. The student uses the women’s locker room at the college’s indoor pool.

Angry parents contacted the police after a young girl saw the transgender student naked inside the locker room.”

This will now give transexauls a constitutional right to the showers, the locker rooms, the restrooms, the changing rooms and the dorm rooms of their choice. Anyone can claim to be transsexual with no proof required.

Or who would have thought that Title IX would be used to destroy the very sports it was written to protect and promote?

“Transgender boy wins girls’ state wrestling title for second time”
“Transgender Man Who Says He’s a Woman Wins Women’s World Championship”
“As trans high school athletes win state titles, parents petition to ban them”

timactual

“… on account of sex(ual idenifcation).”

Too true. As we all know, sex is not binary, it is a spectrum.

rgr769

Yes, because it looks like there are now 37 genders, if we are including furries.

timactual

That’s 37 and counting. Those folks are obviously very creative (if not procreative).

Docduracoat

We need to go back and re write the second amendment and remove the pesky well regulated clause.
It should be changed to read “ the right of the people to keep and bear weapons of war shall not be infringed”