ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags constitution issues , Equal Rights Amendment , era

Reply
Old 9th January 2020, 12:53 PM   #81
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montani Semper Liberi
Posts: 3,354
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
No, in my opinion the jurists would avoid using overly simplistic language like "treated the same" when ruling on such matters.



Many (if not most) American colleges aren't private.



I'd like to a state law which mandates 1.5x as much floor space for ladies restrooms, with a waiver for unisex layouts.
If it helps, discrimination based on sex is at present subject to an intermediate rather than strict level of scrutiny and a lot of the more imaginative concerns about this law would require at a minimum that this change.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 01:00 PM   #82
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,471
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
If it helps, discrimination based on sex is at present subject to an intermediate rather than strict level of scrutiny and a lot of the more imaginative concerns about this law would require at a minimum that this change.
It needs to be put into a sports context for that to make sense to d4m10n.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 01:02 PM   #83
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,502
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Laws can be removed easily and are often removed/altered on whims and for greater political purposes and squabbling.
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Which laws currently on the books are you hoping to see protected from repeal?
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I don't think this is the right way to look at it.
Tell that to Joe. I'm not the one saying that the ERA is necessary to either repeal or protect existing laws.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 01:09 PM   #84
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,502
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
If it helps, discrimination based on sex is at present subject to an intermediate rather than strict level of scrutiny and a lot of the more imaginative concerns about this law would require at a minimum that this change.
Intermediate scrutiny is rooted in the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, and has recently been trending towards something more like "exacting scrutiny."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interm...lassifications

This trend is a good thing (IMO) but I would expect to see it reversed relatively soon.

It remains unclear to me whether the ERA would help keep things going, or merely lock in the status quo.

ETA: As a side note, a former skeptic blogger and friend of mine was the plaintiff in a landmark case on point.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 9th January 2020 at 01:15 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 01:13 PM   #85
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,502
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
It needs to be put into a sports context for that to make sense to d4m10n.
If there are other popularly supported areas of human endeavor in which sex-segregation is both traditional and justified, I'd be happy to talk about them as well.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 01:16 PM   #86
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,471
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
If there are other popularly supported areas of human endeavor in which sex-segregation is both traditional and justified, I'd be happy to talk about them as well.
Good then it should actually pass strict scrutiny and there will be no problems with it.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 01:23 PM   #87
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 41,328
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Tell that to Joe. I'm not the one saying that the ERA is necessary to either repeal or protect existing laws.
I don't think that's what Joe is saying.

The way I'm reading him, the argument is thus:

Laws can be repealed. Any minority protection granted by a law vanishes the moment the law is repealed. On the other hand, constitutional amendments tend to have more staying power. And they supersede laws. So if you repealed a law that granted equality, something like ERA would ensure that the equality was still protected under the constitution even without a specific law. ERA means the protection remains, even if the law providing it is removed.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 01:27 PM   #88
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 41,328
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Good then it should actually pass strict scrutiny and there will be no problems with it.
That's not how to pass strict scrutiny. Popular support and tradition are not factors in strict scrutiny. Only:
- Does the government have a compelling interest in solving the problem?
- Is there no less intrusive way to solve the problem?
- Does this particular inequality actually solve the problem?

That's all.

I suppose you could argue that "popular support" and "tradition" are closely coupled with "the government's compelling interest". I'd be open to an argument along those lines.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 02:37 PM   #89
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,502
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
So if you repealed a law that granted equality, something like ERA would ensure that the equality was still protected under the constitution even without a specific law. ERA means the protection remains, even if the law providing it is removed.
Only if the law protected equality between the sexes in a way that the courts are likely to interpret the ERA to protect equality between the sexes. In point of fact, you'd probably have trouble naming a law which does so, outside of certain provisions in Title IXWP, which are unlikely to face repeal.

ETA: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1681
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 9th January 2020 at 02:38 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 08:49 PM   #90
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 20,042
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Who knows? How did the founders think "free speech" applied to internet porn when the wrote it?

What is your problem with it as a principle? How it plays out in terms of case law is an open question but I get that you think discrimination based on sex is an important option to keep open for congress. that is why we need to not have bans on it in the constitution.

This isn't an amendment to do a specific thing but to establish a principle in the constitution. So why shouldn't this be a principle of individual rights in the constitution?
In principle, it's great, but constitutional amendments aren't principles. What did the founders think? They didn't foresee anything like the current situation. We, on the other hand, have 230 years of precedents and experience to draw upon, so we don't have to do a lot of guessing. A little bit here and there around the fine points, but determining the general consequences are not that difficult.

So, one problem with your statement above is that you are talking about options for Congress. Constitutional amendments don't just apply to Congress, but to every government at every level within the United States.

I've participated in an awful lot of threads over the years at this forum that debated whether someone's constitutional rights were violated. It was very rarely the case that the debated violations dealt with laws or with acts of Congress. On the home page of this forum you can see a link to a trial that occurred challenging an action by a school board. It was a little bit rare among those threads because it involved an action that actually involved a written policy, a sort of pseudo-legislative action. Other threads have dealt with statements made by teachers in the classroom. One teacher was sued because he called creationism "superstitious nonsense". (He lost, but the verdict was overturned on appeal.) Others have involved after school clubs and speeches made by valedictorians at graduations. Those sorts of actions are not even school policy, much less congressional action. No laws are involved. However, modern jurisprudence holds that anyone acting on behalf of any government within the United States must follow the Constitution, not just in their written policies, but in every action they take.

So, you might be looking at it as something that doesn't do a specific thing, but in fact it will do a lot of very specific things. Every lawsuit that is brought will be about a specific thing, and if any of those specific things are found to favor one sex or another, we can examine precedents and see how the court is very likely to rule. If there is any discrimination involved in those laws, or policies, or actions taken by teachers, policemen, or any other government employee or official, then it cannot discriminate between sexes, except in very narrow circumstances defined by the "strict scrutiny" standard.

So I go back to the example I have brought up twice now, an all girls robotic competition. There's one held every year in October in my state. It's at a public school and public funds are used. If this amendment passes, and a boy sues saying that a girl has a state-sponsored privilege that he cannot enjoy, I don't think the school districts participating in the competition would have a prayer. What possible defense could they mount? I can't think of one.

It's conceivable that even more extreme rulings might come out of it. Any situation at all where boys and girls, men and women, are treated differently in any way could come under judicial review. Some of the most bizarre ones will, I believe, be rejected. However, the example of the all girls competition? I definitely think that would be a violation of that amendment. You might not be specifying which things will be considered a violation of people's rights under the amendment, but the courts will have to examine all sorts of specific things, and we can be certain that they will make rulings on specific cases.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2020, 10:39 PM   #91
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 18,367
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
In principle, it's great, but constitutional amendments aren't principles. What did the founders think? They didn't foresee anything like the current situation. We, on the other hand, have 230 years of precedents and experience to draw upon, so we don't have to do a lot of guessing. A little bit here and there around the fine points, but determining the general consequences are not that difficult.

So, one problem with your statement above is that you are talking about options for Congress. Constitutional amendments don't just apply to Congress, but to every government at every level within the United States.

I've participated in an awful lot of threads over the years at this forum that debated whether someone's constitutional rights were violated. It was very rarely the case that the debated violations dealt with laws or with acts of Congress. On the home page of this forum you can see a link to a trial that occurred challenging an action by a school board. It was a little bit rare among those threads because it involved an action that actually involved a written policy, a sort of pseudo-legislative action. Other threads have dealt with statements made by teachers in the classroom. One teacher was sued because he called creationism "superstitious nonsense". (He lost, but the verdict was overturned on appeal.) Others have involved after school clubs and speeches made by valedictorians at graduations. Those sorts of actions are not even school policy, much less congressional action. No laws are involved. However, modern jurisprudence holds that anyone acting on behalf of any government within the United States must follow the Constitution, not just in their written policies, but in every action they take.

So, you might be looking at it as something that doesn't do a specific thing, but in fact it will do a lot of very specific things. Every lawsuit that is brought will be about a specific thing, and if any of those specific things are found to favor one sex or another, we can examine precedents and see how the court is very likely to rule. If there is any discrimination involved in those laws, or policies, or actions taken by teachers, policemen, or any other government employee or official, then it cannot discriminate between sexes, except in very narrow circumstances defined by the "strict scrutiny" standard.

So I go back to the example I have brought up twice now, an all girls robotic competition. There's one held every year in October in my state. It's at a public school and public funds are used. If this amendment passes, and a boy sues saying that a girl has a state-sponsored privilege that he cannot enjoy, I don't think the school districts participating in the competition would have a prayer. What possible defense could they mount? I can't think of one.

It's conceivable that even more extreme rulings might come out of it. Any situation at all where boys and girls, men and women, are treated differently in any way could come under judicial review. Some of the most bizarre ones will, I believe, be rejected. However, the example of the all girls competition? I definitely think that would be a violation of that amendment. You might not be specifying which things will be considered a violation of people's rights under the amendment, but the courts will have to examine all sorts of specific things, and we can be certain that they will make rulings on specific cases.
Suppose amendment passed and the science thing was rules against. Would you describe that as the amendment making things less equal or more equal?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 05:08 AM   #92
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,471
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
In principle, it's great, but constitutional amendments aren't principles. What did the founders think? They didn't foresee anything like the current situation. We, on the other hand, have 230 years of precedents and experience to draw upon, so we don't have to do a lot of guessing. A little bit here and there around the fine points, but determining the general consequences are not that difficult.
Except for all that crap in the bill of rights. Clearly there is no right to treat women like real people.

Clearly the bill of rights was meaningless and pointless just like this.

Quote:
So, one problem with your statement above is that you are talking about options for Congress. Constitutional amendments don't just apply to Congress, but to every government at every level within the United States.
Which ones need to be able to discriminate based on sex, where do you want this discrimination?

Quote:
So, you might be looking at it as something that doesn't do a specific thing, but in fact it will do a lot of very specific things. Every lawsuit that is brought will be about a specific thing, and if any of those specific things are found to favor one sex or another, we can examine precedents and see how the court is very likely to rule. If there is any discrimination involved in those laws, or policies, or actions taken by teachers, policemen, or any other government employee or official, then it cannot discriminate between sexes, except in very narrow circumstances defined by the "strict scrutiny" standard.
Except that sex discrimination is not under strict scrutiny right now.
Quote:
So I go back to the example I have brought up twice now, an all girls robotic competition. There's one held every year in October in my state. It's at a public school and public funds are used. If this amendment passes, and a boy sues saying that a girl has a state-sponsored privilege that he cannot enjoy, I don't think the school districts participating in the competition would have a prayer. What possible defense could they mount? I can't think of one.
Only if they don't have a boys robotic team.
Quote:
It's conceivable that even more extreme rulings might come out of it. Any situation at all where boys and girls, men and women, are treated differently in any way could come under judicial review. Some of the most bizarre ones will, I believe, be rejected. However, the example of the all girls competition? I definitely think that would be a violation of that amendment. You might not be specifying which things will be considered a violation of people's rights under the amendment, but the courts will have to examine all sorts of specific things, and we can be certain that they will make rulings on specific cases.
Yep like the courts preserved the right for individuals to own nuclear weapons as directly stated by the second amendment. Damn cowards not following the constitution.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 05:19 AM   #93
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 20,042
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Except for all that crap in the bill of rights. Clearly there is no right to treat women like real people.

Clearly the bill of rights was meaningless and pointless just like this.
Given the way your post started, the rest of it clearly was not worth reading, so I didn't.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 13th January 2020 at 05:41 AM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 06:10 AM   #94
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,502
So Iíve been trying to work up a list of possible pros and cons of the ERA. Hereís what Iíve got so far.

________

PROs:

Would encourage future legislators to expand federal protections analogous to Title IXWP to various other areas of human endeavor, as enabling legislation

Would permit future (progressive) iterations of the Supreme Court to expand LGBTQ rights in various areas, whenever sex-based discrimination plays some role

________

CONs:

Would possibly (likely?) undercut the ongoing expansion of 14th Amendment rights into areas uncontemplated by the drafters thereof

Would suck up some amount of feminist activist energy which could be better used elsewhere (e.g. codifying Roe into constitutional or statute law)

________

Right now Iím thinking the pros outweigh the cons, but not by all that much. Thoughts?
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 13th January 2020 at 06:16 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 08:58 AM   #95
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 20,042
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
So Iíve been trying to work up a list of possible pros and cons of the ERA. Hereís what Iíve got so far.

________

PROs:

Would encourage future legislators to expand federal protections analogous to Title IXWP to various other areas of human endeavor, as enabling legislation

Would permit future (progressive) iterations of the Supreme Court to expand LGBTQ rights in various areas, whenever sex-based discrimination plays some role

________

CONs:

Would possibly (likely?) undercut the ongoing expansion of 14th Amendment rights into areas uncontemplated by the drafters thereof

Would suck up some amount of feminist activist energy which could be better used elsewhere (e.g. codifying Roe into constitutional or statute law)

________

Right now Iím thinking the pros outweigh the cons, but not by all that much. Thoughts?
Constitutional amendments don't "encourage" or "permit" things.

They are requirements, not suggestions.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 10:35 AM   #96
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,502
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Constitutional amendments don't "encourage" or "permit" things.



They are requirements, not suggestions.
See the OP.

Congress is not required to pass legislation, AFAIK, merely empowered to do so.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 13th January 2020 at 10:37 AM. Reason: URL
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 10:43 AM   #97
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 22,205
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
See the OP.

Congress is not required to pass legislation, AFAIK, merely empowered to do so.
That's not what that means.

If the ERA is passed Congress can't just simply decide not to enforce it. The "May pass laws" thing isn't giving Congress the right to sit on it.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 10:52 AM   #98
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,990
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That's not what that means.

If the ERA is passed Congress can't just simply decide not to enforce it. The "May pass laws" thing isn't giving Congress the right to sit on it.
Congress doesn't enforce laws. The courts and the administration branch do that.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 10:57 AM   #99
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 41,328
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Congress doesn't enforce laws. The courts and the administration branch do that.
The Executive branch.*

Technically speaking, the courts don't enforce laws either. They provide interpretation of the enforcement requirements of the law, for the executive to follow.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 10:57 AM   #100
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,502
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The "May pass laws" thing isn't giving Congress the right to sit on it.
I'll have to defer to your legal expertise, as I've never heard of a case in which an Amendment legally required Congress to pass enabling legislation.

Out of curiosity, what would you say is the legal penalty for failure to do so, in the case of the ERA?
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 11:06 AM   #101
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 45,373
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That's not what that means.

If the ERA is passed Congress can't just simply decide not to enforce it. The "May pass laws" thing isn't giving Congress the right to sit on it.
Yes, actually it is. There is no mechanism to force Congress to pass any laws in relation to the ERA. I think Congress is likely to pass laws in response to the ERA, but they don't have to. Seriously, what do you think is going to happen if Congress does nothing in response to the ERA? Do you think the courts will make them pass a law? They can't do that.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 11:11 AM   #102
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,990
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The Executive branch.*

Technically speaking, the courts don't enforce laws either. They provide interpretation of the enforcement requirements of the law, for the executive to follow.
Exactly. See we agree on something and Hell didn't freeze over.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 11:14 AM   #103
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,990
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes, actually it is. There is no mechanism to force Congress to pass any laws in relation to the ERA. I think Congress is likely to pass laws in response to the ERA, but they don't have to. Seriously, what do you think is going to happen if Congress does nothing in response to the ERA? Do you think the courts will make them pass a law? They can't do that.
Why would they have to? More likely than not, the courts might start reinterpreting some laws as they are currently written.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 11:20 AM   #104
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 45,373
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Why would they have to?
The only way I can make any sense of Joe and Meadmaker's claim that Congress would be compelled to pass laws is if they think the courts would force them to.

Quote:
More likely than not, the courts might start reinterpreting some laws as they are currently written.
Yes, that is likely.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 12:42 PM   #105
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 20,042
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The only way I can make any sense of Joe and Meadmaker's claim that Congress would be compelled to pass laws is if they think the courts would force them to.



Yes, that is likely.
Meadmaker made no such claim.

Joe didn't either.

Eta: although, reading Joe's post, thinking he meant that would be an easy mistake to make.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 13th January 2020 at 12:45 PM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 12:54 PM   #106
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 45,373
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Meadmaker made no such claim.
Let's look at where I got that from:

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
PROs:

Would encourage future legislators to expand federal protections analogous to Title IXWP to various other areas of human endeavor, as enabling legislation
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Constitutional amendments don't "encourage" or "permit" things.

They are requirements, not suggestions.
It sounded to me like you were saying that, contra d4m10n's post, future legislators would not be encouraged to expand federal protections by passing new laws, but would be required to do so. I think that's a reasonable reading of those posts, but I'm open to clarification if you intended something else.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 01:29 PM   #107
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 20,042
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Let's look at where I got that from:




It sounded to me like you were saying that, contra d4m10n's post, future legislators would not be encouraged to expand federal protections by passing new laws, but would be required to do so. I think that's a reasonable reading of those posts, but I'm open to clarification if you intended something else.
What I meant was that no congressional action is required. If the amendment is part of the Constitution, and some governmental action, statute, or policy is contrary to that amendment, then a court can step in and demand compliance. Congress isn't involved.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 01:47 PM   #108
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 45,373
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
What I meant was that no congressional action is required. If the amendment is part of the Constitution, and some governmental action, statute, or policy is contrary to that amendment, then a court can step in and demand compliance. Congress isn't involved.
OK, I can agree with that.

I still think I'm right about Joe's post, but he can clarify if I'm not.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 01:50 PM   #109
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,502
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
If the amendment is part of the Constitution, and some governmental action, statute, or policy is contrary to that amendment, then a court can step in and demand compliance.
Do any (actual or hypothetical) governmental actions, statutes, or policies come to mind? If so I may have to put that in the PRO column.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 02:02 PM   #110
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 20,042
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Do any (actual or hypothetical) governmental actions, statutes, or policies come to mind? If so I may have to put that in the PRO column.
Holding an all girls robotics competition in a public school. That's an actual policy.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 07:45 PM   #111
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,502
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Holding an all girls robotics competition in a public school. That's an actual policy.
You think it's a policy "contrary to that amendment," such that "a court can step in and demand compliance" with the amendment by either adding a boys competition or integrating the sexes?

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2020, 07:56 PM   #112
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 20,042
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
You think it's a policy "contrary to that amendment," such that "a court can step in and demand compliance" with the amendment by either adding a boys competition or integrating the sexes?

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
Yes. Either of those steps would bring the policy into compliance.



They would also totally defeat the purpose of the event, but I'm sure some people would think that's a good thing. (Just for reference, a robotics team will compete in 1-5 "official" events per year, and anywhere from 0-5 "off season" events. One of the off season events will be all girls, for the teams who choose to go. All the others are integrated. There are no all boys competitions.)
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 05:18 AM   #113
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 18,367
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Yes. Either of those steps would bring the policy into compliance.



They would also totally defeat the purpose of the event, but I'm sure some people would think that's a good thing. (Just for reference, a robotics team will compete in 1-5 "official" events per year, and anywhere from 0-5 "off season" events. One of the off season events will be all girls, for the teams who choose to go. All the others are integrated. There are no all boys competitions.)
The question isn't if it is a good thing or not but is stopping that event a more equal thing?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 05:30 AM   #114
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 20,042
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The question isn't if it is a good thing or not but is stopping that event a more equal thing?
That's one question, but it's not a question that I, personally, care about.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2020, 12:32 PM   #115
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,502
Video editorial from Ken Burns:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/15/o...amendment.html
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2020, 06:26 AM   #116
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 22,205
Not that it really matters (or more not that it wasn't already a forgone conclusion) but Virginia ratified the ERA last night, which depending on which side you listen to, ratifies it.

I'd wager the courts are gonna start weighing in on it soon.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2020, 09:45 AM   #117
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 20,042
Interesting. It doesn't even show up on my Google news feed.

I think there are none opinions that matter at this point, but the possible ways it will play out could be fascinating. Who will sue to overturn it? Who has standing.

My predictions:. It will make it to the Supreme Court. It will be rejected by the court. It will be immediately reintroduced in Congress.

After that? I don't know what to expect.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2020, 12:18 PM   #118
ChristianProgressive
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,176
The 14th Amendment renders the ERA redundant and unnecessary.
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2020, 12:23 PM   #119
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,990
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
The 14th Amendment renders the ERA redundant and unnecessary.
I think it's necessary.

It should be noted that Women didn't have the right to vote for another half a century after the 14th Amendment was passed.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2020, 12:25 PM   #120
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,502
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
The 14th Amendment renders the ERA redundant and unnecessary.
...whenever SCOTUS happens to be dominated by progressive jurists who will interpret it broadly, well beyond the original intent of those who penned and ratified it.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:25 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.