Posted on 03/23/2022 6:42:34 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
On this day 50 years ago, Congress approved the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Within one year, 30 states had ratified it, fueling hopes that the ERA would soon become the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But a half-century later, the ERA is mired in legal uncertainty. The Supreme Court of the United States could ultimately strike it down as unconstitutional.
The ERA is short but important. It declares that "equality of rights under law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." The ERA would give Congress the power to defend and promote sex equality, for instance, by fighting intrusive abortion restrictions, closing the gender pay gap and punishing unjust sex-based discrimination by federal, state and local government actors.
It is no easy feat to amend the Constitution. It is so hard that it has occurred only 27 times in 235 years. America's amendment labyrinth requires approval from two-thirds of both houses of Congress, followed by ratification by three-quarters of the states. That means 38 states.....
A second set of questions concerns whether a state can revoke its earlier ratification. In the years since the ERA was proposed in 1972, a handful of states have revoked their prior ratification of the amendment. If these states can legally rescind their prior ratification, fewer than 38 states have validly ratified the ERA. The question for the Court, then, will be whether a state may ratify an amendment and then revoke that ratification before the amendment becomes official. The Constitution is silent on this point, too.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
If states recent votes for the ERA are supposed to be valid (i.e., Nevada in 2017, Illinois in 2018 and Virginia in 2020) then rescinded votes should also be valid.
Now women can identify as a man, so it is not needed!
IIRC, they keep playing games with the deadline for ratification. It was supposed to be 1979 (or possibly earlier?)
But we know how the Democrats play the game — they just move the goalposts, extend the deadline, keep playing it out. Eventually, at some point, one way or another, they might, sort of, get the votes they need. And then WHAM! it’s a done deal and can never be changed. They win.
It is a moot issue, it expired over 30 years ago.
Validating the ERA would be a financial boon to men, who pay extra for life and auto insurance. They are also discriminated against in divorce rulings concerning children and assets
They had a year to ratify, they didn’t, its dead... you want it, have to start all over... insane this has to go to the Supreme Court to be resolved.
If the ERA were to be ratified today it would go down as the most pointless constitutional amendment since Prohibition. It is a matter of “settled law” in the U.S. that people can self-identify however they damn well please, so establishing “gender equity” in Constitutional law is meaningless.
From Wikipedia:The original joint resolution (H.J.Res. 208), by which the 92nd Congress proposed the amendment to the states, was prefaced by the following resolving clause:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:
As the joint resolution was passed on March 22, 1972, this effectively set March 22, 1979 as the deadline for the amendment to be ratified by the requisite number of states. However, the 92nd Congress did not incorporate any time limit into the body of the actual text of the proposed amendment, as had been done with a number of other proposed amendments.
It doesn't matter. It was clearly the intent of Congress to have a deadline.
My God, we really are reliving the late 70s. Ugh. This again.
Congress set a deadline for ratification. The deadline passed with no ratification. Congress then extended the deadline. The extension was in the process of being thrown out by the courts, but it became moot when the second deadline passed without ratification.
To win in court (ultimately before the Supreme Court), the proponents must convince the court that (1) Congressional deadlines were meaningless, and regardless of clear Congressional intent when they passed the Amendment and sent it to the states, the states have forever to pass it, AND (2) once a state votes to ratify, however long it takes, they can NEVER vote to rescind their ratification vote, even if they did so before ratification and even before the first Congressional deadline for ratification.
The ERA rising from the grave like an undead zombie? Check.
Jimmy Carter inflation? Check.
Rising interest rates with no end in sight? Check.
Cold war with a reassembling Soviet Union? Check.
Oil shortages and gas lines? Check.
The U.S. economy held hostage to OPEC? Check.
Yep. We are back in the late 1970s.
This is just an attempt to revive the ideal, and then to rewrite at the same time, as the DNC adds to creation.
It's bad enough that males are competing in female sports, but there's no way to be true to that statement and have female sports teams whatsoever, including Olympic sports.
EQUAL pay based on gender should NOT apply for just being a warm butt on a chair in an office-—or a live body in a warehouse.
IF you have no skills-—no incentive—no initiative-—poor attendance-—no speed or accuracy,-———
THAT doesn’t deserve ‘equal pay’.
Too many persons in this country are working too hard to destroy merit & achievement goals.
Here’s hopin’ it gets shot down.
Won’t we need to get Biologists involved?
I believe the strongest argument against ratification is the right of a state to change its vote before ratification. Robert’s Rules of Order, Rules of the U.S. Senate, Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, and election rules of various states include provisions for changing votes. Even Supreme Court justices have changed their votes.
I do not know if there are precedents in Federal court cases. But it seems that the widespread practice of allowing votes to be changed should inure to votes regarding ratification of amendments to the Constitution.
At least the music then didn't suck as bad as today's auto-tune crap ... :-)
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.