Posted on 01/03/2020 7:18:46 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
As America enters a new decade, progressives are stepping boldly into … the bra-burning feminism of the 1970s. Specifically, they’re trying to resurrect the Equal Rights Amendment, the radical feminist constitutional amendment the rest of us had long thought a dead issue.
If they manage to ratify — a dubious constitutional proposition — they could enshrine left-wing gender dogmas into the highest law of the land. This year, Virginia is expected to ratify the ERA, bringing the total number of states to have done so since its heyday in the ’70s to 38, the threshold needed for amending the Constitution.
The amendment’s language sounds unobjectionable enough: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” But precisely because of its broad language, the amendment could open the gateway to all manner of constitutional claims most Americans reject.
American women are living the freest, most prosperous lives in human history. The Constitution protects their right to speak, worship, vote, bear arms and more. The female jobless rate is at a historic low, and women own the majority of wealth in the country, along with earning the lion’s share of higher degrees.
Women are perfectly capable of flexing political power: They make up the majority of voters in nearly every election. Sex discrimination is already forbidden under both federal and state laws, as well as by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The ERA won’t add to those protections, but could be used to impose sex-sameness.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Amendments must be ratified by 3/4 of states, not 2/3 as she says farther down in the article.
Also, I believe that 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause was meant to protect the equality of freed slaves, not man-woman equality, SSM, etc.
PING!
Be careful, what you ask for; you may get what you wish.
The only purpose of the ERA is to further eviscerate the Constitution and make it more like the constitutions of communist tyrannies, all of which have articles declaring equal rights for women and men (a direct attack on the family).
It’s “Best if used by” date was 30 years ago.
They have to start the process all over again
The original ERA had a 7-year time limit for ratification. When it failed to get the required 38 states, Congress passed a law extending the time limit another 3 years. Both time limits have long since expired. And several states have ‘unratified’ the amendment. The left’s argument will be that states cannot ‘unratify’ and that the time limits placed on ratification can be ignored...just because.
If/when VA ratifies, it will of course go to the courts/SCOTUS, taking who knows how much time and we will enjoy the spectacle of seeing an amendment to the Constitution being added or not by 9 unelected Justices. Kind of like how we got gay “marriage”.
No communism-inspired amendment has a best-by date, of course; take amendments numbers sixteen and seventeen.
They will have equal success trying to resurrect prohibition.
YOU GO, GIRL! :)
I thought there was a time limit on ratification and that limit passed years ago.
This is just virtue signaling. No federal judge will allow either the Illinois ratification or the pending Virginia ratification to stand.
It’s dead, Jim.
I think this is their attempt to impose social justice / fourth wave feminism from the top down.
Have you seen some of the rulings by judges appointed by the Kenyanesian Usurper?
I wouldn’t be so certain that no federal judge will side with them.
Since the deadline for ratification, part of the Amendment, was effectively passed by a 2/3 vote in each house, Congress should have made sure the extension was passed by a 2/3 vote. Since Congress simply treated the extension as a law (presumably a simple majority in each house), that will enable them to resurrect or eliminate the deadline by simple majorities via precedent.
I see your point. But it will be the Justices who will get the final word. Not just on what Congress did/might do, but states that rescinded ratification. Once we will be in the hands of the all-wise SCOTUS.
We need an equal rights amendment for men now, not women.
Divide and stir up resentment between people. It’s what the left is and does.
Garbage.
Actually it was also unnecesary to have the “women’s vote” amend, and the “black vote” amend.
We could likewise argue that they made the nation worse, and certainly didn’t improve it.
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.