Three Democratic attorneys general sue to have Equal Rights Amendment added to Constitution

CNN ^ | January 30, 2020 | Veronica Stracqualursi

[kaehurowing]

It’s being interpreted now that it’s all about LGBTQIXYZ, although I agree that was never its intent. I can remember back in the Seventies one of the biggest objections was that it would allow women to use the men’s restroom. If you started bringing up things like homosexual rights and homosexual marriage and transgenders, people would have looked at you like you were mentally ill.

They even had a “just for women” cigarette brand that played off the whole thing: “You’ve come a long way baby,” was its brand jingle. Can you imagine the “MeToo” folks having a cardiac fit about the term “baby” now?

[BatGuano]

Harvard....my mother would say, “I once thought that Harvard was “Pink,” (leaning towards Communism) but, I am wrong, Harvard is RED, solid RED because the school is a center of Communist thought and a propaganda factory for the Communist Party.”
History proves that she was right.

I can’t print my father’s statements. He was harsh, regarding Harvard.

[Amendment10]

Second Amendment and voting rights amendments are all the “equal rights” that citizens need.

Remember in November!

MAGA! Now KAGA! (Keep America Great Always!)

[eartick]

Wow 3 out of 50 (57 if you are Odinga) is not going anywhere. Right?

[Robert DeLong]

While what you say has some merit, but only when the Constitution does not explicitly have language spelling it out. There is language pertaining to amending the Constitution that is clearly spelled out in Article 5 of the Constitution. That language in no way permits the courts to alter Constitution wording that exists.

For example, prohibition was enacted via the 18th amendment to the Constitution. It took the 21st amendment to repeal prohibition. Now before prohibition the states or counties within states could declare their county or state to be alcohol free, or impose limits on consumption. When I first moved to Virginia they had what were called Blue Laws that prohibited the sale of alcohol, and also prohibited the consumption of alcohol at public establishments, such as bars or restaurants, bu those laws only affected Sundays. All other weekdays it was legal. I have know counties in North Carolina & Texas that declared their counties as dry counties.. People got around those laws by bringing their own spirits to an establishment, where you were required to purchase the additives to make the drinks, such as coke or another liquid additive that was non-alcoholic. 8>)

[rollo tomasi]

They want to backdoor abortion into the Constitution in case a future majority in the Supreme Court would apply reason in the matter. All that homosexual stuff too, especially concerning forcing accepting degeneracy into private schools/Churches.

ERA would usurp a lot of First Amendment protections.

[FrdmLvr]

But at least we know who and what they are - lawless enemies of this Nation.

And Soros plants. Soon Soros hand picked AG candidates will be elected in all 50 states.

[Reno89519]

Okay, where does it say an amendment expires? Seriously, skipping the content, why should it matter it it takes a week or fifty years? And just how does one rescind approval? Is that in the constitution? I don’t see the problem with ERA, it seems common sense today. Recognize it!

[TexasGurl24]

There are Obama lunatics posing as judges who have judicial authority. The DC Circuit and 4th Circuit are stacked with them. This is going to have to go to SCOTUS because if an Obama judge hears this, they are going to ignore the law and Constitution.

[Publius]

Okay, where does it say an amendment expires?

The prose that defines the ratification window exists both in the text of the amendment proposal and in the text of the Joint Resolution of Congress that passes it to the states for ratification. Congress first applied a ratification window to the 18th (Prohibition) Amendment. This was challenged in federal court. In 1921, in Dillon v. Gloss, the Supreme Court stated that Congress possessed the right to create and enforce ratification windows.

...why should it matter it it takes a week or fifty years?

Because Congress applied a ratification window to the ERA. Had Congress not applied a ratification window, the ERA could be ratified at any time. This is how the 27th Amendment, proposed in 1789 and ratified in 1992, got into the Constitution. It lacked a ratification window.

And just how does one rescind approval?

A state legislature revisits the ratification and rescinds it. This act is known as retrocession; the shortened term is rescission.

Is that in the constitution?

It doesn't have to be. Very little is actually hard-coded in the 4000 words of the Constitution. The document forms a foundation upon which legislation and case law build a legal structure.

I don’t see the problem with ERA, it seems common sense today. Recognize it!

If you want abortion on demand, gay marriage, transgenderism and other societal perversions recognized as law in the Constitution, then feel free to support the ERA.

[chiller]

Maybe Ds will someday get it through their skulls that the rule of law means the frikn rule of law.

I always toss out a scenario to make the point: Turn off all traffic lights and see what chaos ensues and how you like it. That’s exactly what happens when the rule of law is ignored.

[Publius]

Only the Supreme Court can reverse a Supreme Court decision. Voiding the ratification window would require the Supreme Court to reverse its 1921 decision in Dillon v. Gloss. No lower court can reverse Dillon.

[TexasGurl24]

Obama judges on lower courts consistently ignore precedent. They have been ignoring Heller since it was decided.

[Rummyfan]

Unbelievable. The clock expired on this in 1982. 1982! On what basis can they claim that these new votes should ratify this expired proposed amendment? I wouldn’t be surprised if they find some sympathetic lower court that will go along with them. But does this mean that we can also go back and repeal amendments too? I particularly don’t like the 19th....

[HamiltonJay]

Sorry folks. Waste of taxpayers money and time..

Already decided all the way to the supreme court

[Chewbarkah]

He has a JD from the University of Richmond School of Law.

[fwdude]

I don’t particularly mind the possibility that an amendment runs forever, if a state is allowed to rescind their approval before the last state ratifies.

We have had amendments that lasted centuries, the 27th amendment, which started in 1789 and got the last necessary state in 1992.

Issues that old become stale and irrelevant. What the left wants passed is what is already in existence in practice. This ERA would give them a blank check to CONSTRUE any number of their agenda items as applicable under it.

[Bommer]

I’m for it. As long as the 29th A mendment gives us the right to openly hunt liberals with no bag limit year round!

[The Bishop]

I’m so close to 60 I can’t feel the difference and we were discussing this when I was in the 9th grade. There were NO diesel buses, I was whipped by the principle in junior high, our lunchroom still had candy and soda vending machine. If it was that long ago shouldn’t we have long since moved on?

[fwdude]

Congress has very legitimate reasons for including ratification windows in such proposed amendments. The strongest arguement to do so is that generations who were not engaged in the process and who have a different opinion of the original proposal would be locked out of that critical decision process which profoundly affects them. Also, states have been added during the past amendment processes, so that target number for ratificaiton is a moving target. It makes far more sense to address the wishes of the state populations who are contemporaneous to the issue, not those who are 100 years down the road when the original ratifiers have DIED.