Skip to comments.
Lawmakers pledge ERA will pass in Virginia. Then what?
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^
| January 1, 2020
| Sarah Rankin and David Crary, Associated Press
Posted on 01/02/2020 3:03:50 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
As I recall, the argument against the ERA was that it would eliminate laws that benefit women.
Of course the Equal Protection Act should already do that, but as long as men are going to take what the biased system dishes out, nothing is going to change for men regardless of whether the ERA is passed.
21
posted on
01/02/2020 3:35:20 PM PST
by
TwelveOfTwenty
(Prayers for our country and President Trump)
To: stars & stripes forever
Correct. This is just virtue signaling from the Left.
22
posted on
01/02/2020 3:35:23 PM PST
by
Publius
("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill & Publius available at Amazon.)
To: goldstategop
Only takes one Obama judge to issue a nationwide ruling and Roberts to do his thang. Lots of mischief can be committed before it works its way to USSC.
Dems are looking for any election year issue to beat Trump over the head with.
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Then nothing.
There is a time limit.
24
posted on
01/02/2020 3:39:17 PM PST
by
Harmless Teddy Bear
(A hero is a hero no matter what medal they give him. Likewise a schmuck is still a schmuck.)
To: FirstFlaBn
To revive the ERA, a court would have to reverse the Supreme Court's 1921 decision in Dillon v. Gloss and modify the Court's 1939 decision in Coleman v. Miller. This would create utter constitutional chaos, which is why no federal judge will touch this.
25
posted on
01/02/2020 3:40:55 PM PST
by
Publius
("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill & Publius available at Amazon.)
To: Publius
Only the SCOTUS can overturn its own precedent. That would be a black swan event. Forget it.
26
posted on
01/02/2020 3:43:59 PM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: goldstategop
As I said. It’s dead, and no amount of liberal braying will bring it back to life.
27
posted on
01/02/2020 3:45:45 PM PST
by
Publius
("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill & Publius available at Amazon.)
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
They make up their own rules.
28
posted on
01/02/2020 4:11:23 PM PST
by
Luke21
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
It’s been dead for decades.
29
posted on
01/02/2020 4:14:06 PM PST
by
Lurkinanloomin
(Natural Born Citizens Are Born Here of Citizen Parents_Know Islam, No Peace-No Islam, Know Peace)
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Do the VA 'Rats think there should be a Convention of the States now. If you count all the various states voting FOR variations of one over the last 230 years and don't count the states that overturned their votes for such you might well get to 38. The current movement for such, dating roughly to Mark Levin's book urging such, doesn't count all historical votes in their favor; I forget where their current tally sits. But if the 'Rats look to be getting anywhere with their post-mortem ERA push the CoS folks should start waving their hands. Over the years support for, and fear of, CoS movements have come from both side of the aisle. Much as they've love to shove through an ERA I doubt a majority of the left would take one at the price of having a CoS in this era. Whereas if there is a conservative majority for CoS now, of which I'm unsure, it at best is one favoring 'conservative' state motion counting, restricting votes to those similarly, if not identically phrased in ways intended to limit the CoS scope to our issues.
30
posted on
01/02/2020 4:26:09 PM PST
by
JohnBovenmyer
(waiting for the tweets to hatch)
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; All
The Article V supermajority states failed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment by the deadline established by Congress, March 22, 1979. Correction welcome.
Equal Rights Amendment
Consider that the voting rights amendments are all the constitutional equal rights protections that the country needs imo.
Also, the Constitution implies a relatively short time frame for the states to ratify amendments proposed by Congress imo.
More specifically, elections have consequences. And if a new session of Congress no longer has 2/3 supermajority support of each House for a proposed amendment passed by Congress before an election, the Article V supermajority of states failing to ratify the proposed amendment before the election, then perhaps the proposed amendment should die.
A proposed, post-election amendment should die especially if it was a controversial election year issue like the expired, politically correct Equal Rights Amendment is.
Hypothetically speaking, a ratified amendment proposed by Congress needs to go back to Congress to pass another 2/3 supermajority vote by each House before being added to the Constitution. This would be a test-of-time safeguard against misguided, politically correct amendments to the Constitution.
Remember in November!
MAGA! Now KAGA! (Keep America Great Always!)
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I was living in South Carolina during the 1970s when the liberals were trying to get an ERA Amendment (equal rights for women) added to the Constitution... I think only 1 state more was needed at the time and SC was one of 3 possible states to cave...SC was considered the softest so the liberals converged on the state and campaigned and threatened for months...
The week before the SC legislature voted they floated candle light paper boats down the river in Columbia declaring the magic would work for them and a host of other witchery activities...we were neck deep in ‘true believer’ nuts...
However SC did not cave and so they never got the Amendment they thought they were entitled to and that for them was in the bag...
OH NOOOOOOOEZ the mothers and grandmothers of the snowflakes of 2016 were foiled...
The so called ERA Amendment was defeated...
I don’t know what this ...
To: goldstategop
I was gonna say, didn’t the clock run out on that?
33
posted on
01/02/2020 5:19:41 PM PST
by
monkeyshine
(live and let live is dead)
To: Amendment10
That amendment really should be buried, and Congress should simply start over with a new ERA. But the Democraps, once again, are trying to skirt the rules — to cheat, essentially — by acting if the ratification time period for the ERA were as open-ended as the time period for the 27th Amendment, which had no sunset for ratification.
34
posted on
01/02/2020 6:48:24 PM PST
by
Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(Show me the people who own the land, the guns and the money, and I'll show you the people in charge.)
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Then what? Then nothing. The ERA is a dead letter.
35
posted on
01/02/2020 7:55:55 PM PST
by
hinckley buzzard
(Power is more often surrendered than seized.)
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
36
posted on
01/02/2020 7:59:09 PM PST
by
Mrs. Don-o
("May the LORD bless you and keep you; may the Lord turn to you his countenance, and give you peace.")
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
You cannot revive something that is already dead.
What I don’t get is why don’t the socialists start over with a new ERA in congress and see if they can pass it out to the states for ratification? Instead of fair play, they prefer to cheat and play a losing game.
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Kind of ironic - can ERA even have relevance these days?
38
posted on
01/03/2020 3:40:41 AM PST
by
trebb
(Don't howl about illegal leeches, or Trump in general, while not donating to FR - it's hypocritical.)
To: kaehurowing
Main objection is that it would give women no choice about whether to fight in actual battles in the armed forces.
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
feelgood feelgood feelgood
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson