|
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. |
![]() |
#81 |
No Punting
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,052
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#82 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50,155
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#83 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 6,079
|
|
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#84 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 6,079
|
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. |
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#85 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 6,079
|
|
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#86 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50,155
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#87 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,609
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#88 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,609
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#89 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 6,079
|
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 |
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#90 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,813
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#91 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 20,168
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#92 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50,155
|
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#93 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,813
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#94 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 6,079
|
So I’ve been trying to work up a list of possible pros and cons of the ERA. Here’s what I’ve 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 I’m thinking the pros outweigh the cons, but not by all that much. Thoughts? |
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#95 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,813
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#96 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 6,079
|
|
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#97 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,958
|
|
__________________
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." |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#98 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 27,964
|
|
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#99 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,609
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#100 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 6,079
|
|
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#101 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,010
|
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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#102 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 27,964
|
|
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#103 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 27,964
|
|
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#104 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,010
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#105 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,813
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#106 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,010
|
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. |
__________________
"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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#107 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,813
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#108 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,010
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#109 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 6,079
|
|
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#110 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,813
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#111 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 6,079
|
|
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#112 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,813
|
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.) |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#113 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 20,168
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#114 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,813
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#115 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 6,079
|
|
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#116 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,958
|
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. |
__________________
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." |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#117 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,813
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#118 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,805
|
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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#119 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 27,964
|
|
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#120 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 6,079
|
|
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|