|
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. |
![]() |
#1 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,937
|
Possible ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment and related legal controversy
Long story short ("Too late!" - Clue)
- 1923 an amendment to the US Constitution that would add:
Quote:
to the US Constitution was proposed. - The US Constitution requires a 2/3rd super-majority of states to ratify an amendment to the Constitution and puts no time limit on the process. - The amendment then went through several attempts at ratification of varying degrees of popularity and support throughout the next several decades, but was never ratified. - In 1972 the amendment was re-introduced with a seven year deadline to acquire the necessary (38 out 50) states to pass. - By the time the 7 year deadline came around 31 states had ratified the Amendment. - After the deadline had passed there have been... legal actions which may or may not have extended it (this is the main point of controversy.) - After 1979 up to now the number of states that have ratified the Amendment now stands at 37. - To make it even more complicated some states claim to have pulled back their ratification but there's dispute over whether or not they can actually do that. - Which brings us to now. Virginia is highly likely to ratify it within the upcoming month, which might bring up to 38 required state ratification, depending on who you listen to. Opinions are differing on whether or not this would be a valid Amendment given... *gestures up at last half dozen points* - So basically we might wind up in a minor Constitutional Crisis coming up soon over whether or not this amendment is valid or not. General overviews: NPR: https://www.npr.org/2020/01/08/79441...-next-is-murky Vox: https://www.vox.com/2020/1/8/2105491...-virginia-date Legal Argument that the Ratification will be valid if Virginia passes it: https://equalmeansequal.org/ Legal Argument that the Ratification will not be valid if Virginia passes it: https://www.nationalreview.com/bench...d-decades-ago/ US Department of Justice's opinion statement that the deadline has passed https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1232501/download |
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate." |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
![]() Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 58,938
|
In 2020 are we really ready to decide if women should be equal to men? I think we'd all be more comfortable with another century delay to think it over more.
|
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 20,160
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
![]() Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 58,938
|
|
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 20,160
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
![]() Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 58,938
|
|
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 91,292
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
![]() Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 58,938
|
|
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
![]() Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,355
|
|
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 20,160
|
If you have no position on if the ERA advances the determination if women are equal to men, then it is nonsensical to ask if we are really ready to decide if women should be equal to men in a thread about the ERA.
And if you do have a position that it advances that determination, then you can articulate how. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,937
|
|
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate." |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,599
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 30,644
|
|
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 6,078
|
From Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
Quote:
Sounds like we're gonna have to start from scratch, if the most reputable and powerful progressive female jurist in America says so. I'm not running an argument from authority here, she really has a say in how this process would turn out. I'd also like to hear an answer to this question. Last I checked, the cause of equality was making progress at a fairly steady clip. |
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,486
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,803
|
What I find rather appalling is that the real issue here is not the Equal Rights Ammendment, but the process by which constitutional amendments get passed. Never mind the content of the amendment. Suppose an amendment is submitted, and a state legislature votes to ratify it. However, it is extremely unpopular in that state, and the following election, the members of the legislature who supported it are dumped. The new legislature votes to rescind the ratification.
Should that state still be considered, for all time, to have ratified the amendment? Should they count toward the 3/4 even after the people of the state made it clear they don't want it? There are six different amendments that have passed Congress, but have never been ratified by enough states to be considered part of the Constitution. I'll guarantee you that of those six, none of you will want all six of them. Should the states that have passed them be considered to have passed them for all time? i.e., no rescinding of the ratification is allowed, and none of the built in time limits that were part of the submission process shall be honored? An amendment, once passed by Congress, can never be withdrawn, ever, and once passed by a legislature can never be overturned by the voters of the state? It's a truly bad idea. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
![]() Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 58,938
|
|
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,937
|
This is where I'm at. I'm trying to figure out what legal strength the 7 year limit has and how it is applied.
Near as I can tell there is nothing inherent, baked into the Constitution that puts a time limit on an amendment process and I'm not totally unsympathetic to people not wanting to put into the process a loophole that will allow stalling or filibusters or "run out the clock" strategies so I'm okay with the process being pretty long, but this amendment has been going on since either the 1970s or the 1920s depending on how you want to look at it and that's... off. |
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate." |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 27,302
|
I'm not sure who Suddenly was addressing, but I do think there's a difference between statutory and constitutional law, which I think both Bob and the prestige are missing. We have seemed to decide that men and women are equal, at least mostly, but that equality is dependent on specific laws, and laws can be changed. Since laws are judged on their constitutionality, it would seem that an amendment would have more authority. From the theoretical standpoint, I think a unified declaration of equality differs from a collection of individual laws, even if the sum total of the laws addresses all the issues, or seems to at the moment.
If you believe that the law duplicates the amendment, I would see little reason not to pass the amendment, unless you hope to undo the law in the future. |
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver) Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,937
|
There's a fundamental difference between a law and an amendment and laws cannot replace them. The Constitution gives things protection in a way mere laws don't.
It's why slavery is unconstitutional, not just outlawed. Because laws can be changed a lot easier. There's both symbolic and practical meaning to an amendment that isn't there in just a law. Women should not have to live under the threat of their rights being voted away via a process no more difficult or less subject to passing whims then raising the tax code or renaming a stretch of highway. It's the fundamental reason why certain things are harder to change. |
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate." |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,719
|
I don't think it's a Constitutional crisis. It's a Constitutional interesting-question-for-law-nerds, but not much else - primarily because the way the 14th Amendment has been interpreted since the 1960s. I think that's actually happened with the ERA, multiple times. |
__________________
I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,937
|
|
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate." |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,803
|
It has, although the election results weren't landslides. It was more like the amendment passed in a close vote, but later it was rescinded, in another close vote.
Also, there was a time limit in the amendment proposal. The Supreme Court ruled that the vote on ratification could not be rescinded. The Supreme Court also ruled that the time limit was unconstitutional. So, those 37 states that ratified the amendment include some states who subsequently rescinded the ratification, but the Supreme Court at the time said a state couldn't do that. Once the vote was taken, it was for all time. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 27,956
|
|
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 20,160
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
No Punting
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,052
|
The main difference would be that the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment does not apply to the federal government.
Other than that, It would be fun to watch a court full of Trump appointed Federalist society geeks explain how it really means that birth control is illegal or something. Once you get down to it the actual text of the Constitution isn't all that relevant to constitutional law. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,719
|
|
__________________
I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 27,956
|
![]() |
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 16,495
|
|
__________________
I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,162
|
|
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,162
|
|
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,803
|
Seven year time limits became normal as people realized that, once passed Congress, there was no way for Congress to take it back, and no way to decide whether the people had rejected it. I don't know when the first time limited amendment was introduced, but by some time in the 20th century it had become the norm.
Prior to that, once they were put out there, they were out there forever. That's how our most recent constitutional amendment got passed. It was ratified in 1992. It was introduced and passed a vote of Congress in 1789. It's also a total waste of ink, but it sounded cool, so legislatures voted on it in 1992. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 91,292
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 20,160
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,803
|
That was a huge factor in defeating the amendment in the first place. To be honest, that was a much bigger concern then than it is now. The nature of the military has changed. There will never be another war where large numbers of barely trained people holding rifles can win a battle. These days, the military turns away people who aren't good enough. In WWII, and maybe all the way through Vietnam, if you could stop a bullet, you were good enough. The draft isn't particularly relevant anymore.
Another thing that killed the amendment was that, as people saw courts getting more and more involved in declaring anything down to the local level fair game to be declared unconstitutional, people saw a wave of litigation coming where any time a school principal did anything at all where a boy and a girl were treated differently in any way, there would be a lawsuit saying that one or the other, or both, had had their constitutional rights violated. And finally, there were laws passed that were intended specifically to protect women, especially in the workplace. A lot of people seemed to think that any law at all that had any special treatment for either sex in any circumstance would be overturned by the ERA. There were even suggestions, totally fabricated of course, that if we passed that amendment, some court would rule that two men could get married, or that a boy had the right to use the girls' locker room. Can you imagine that? Such absurd scare tactics actually had an effect on defeating the amendment. People fell for those nonsense arguments. But I digress. The most important question in my mind is whether the people of the United States can be said to want the amendment today based on the vote of the Nebraska legislature of 1972, especially considering that the Nebraska legislature of 1973 voted against it. Surely if people today think it's a good idea it could be reintroduced today, and ratified today. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,803
|
Now, as for the amendment itself, and whether or not the amendment was a good idea, then or now, we have to recognize that, in modern judicial practice, it is not just "the law" i.e. the wording in a statute, that is affected by a constitutional provision.
If a kid gets a detention because a teacher didn't like something the kid said, that kid's free speech rights have been violated, and he could quite likely sue the teacher and/or school district for violation of his first amendment rights. There's no statute involved. There's no official policy. However, the teacher is acting as an instrument of the state. That teacher's actions are an extension of state power, and so the first amendment extends down to that level. A teacher can't lead his class in prayer every day, and it is not because of a law that says he can't. It is because the constitution covers his actions, just as it covers the actions of the legislature. So, this October, there will be an all girls robotics competition held in a public school, where students from multiple public schools participate. There will not be an all boys competition held. Public funds will be used for this activity. How could it possibly be held that this activity would be considered constitutionally acceptable if the ERA were ratified? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 91,292
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#38 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 6,078
|
|
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#39 | |||
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,174
|
Lots of misunderstandings - willful and not - about what this amendment would do. John Oliver has a good piece on it if you are actually interested in learning.
|
|||
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 |
||||
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#40 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 20,160
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|