Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

Post Reply
User avatar
Addie
Posts: 25797
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#1

Post by Addie » Thu May 31, 2018 8:50 am

Time
Illinois Ratifies the Equal Rights Amendment -- 36 Years After the Deadline

(SPRINGFIELD, Ill.) — Illinois on Wednesday became the 37th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, putting the country only one state away from a landmark change to the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing equal rights for women.

The historic passage was nearly half a century in the making, and came 38 years after supporters staged hunger strikes and floor sit-ins in a futile attempt to persuade the Illinois Legislature to OK the proposal by what was a congressionally set deadline.

The Illinois House approved the amendment 72-45 Wednesday. The Senate approved it 43-12 in April.

Rep. Lou Lang, the Skokie Democrat who sponsored the proposal, called the vote a historic moment for lawmakers to make a difference for women across the nation.


¡Qué vergüenza!

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 6447
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#2

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Thu May 31, 2018 8:56 am

:happyfamily:

Last century, around 1975 or so, I was happy thinking I had the first "Pass the ERA" bumper sticker on my car in the small southern town where I lived. To my delight, I was ninja'ed by one of my good friends! Now where is that bumper sticker...?


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 11243
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#3

Post by Whatever4 » Thu May 31, 2018 9:19 am

My crazy evangelical aunt used to watch the 700 Club on her knees to better prepare her for prayer opportunities. She refused to buy ERA laundry detergent (or even watch the commercials) because the detergent sponsored the Equal Rights Amendment. Really. You can see it in the name.


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (R-ME)

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 6832
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#4

Post by RoadScholar » Thu May 31, 2018 9:24 am

So, what does (or did) the "deadline" mean? Is ratification only symbolic at this point, or if one more state ratifies it, does it go into effect? :think:


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Dolly
Posts: 11782
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#5

Post by Dolly » Thu May 31, 2018 10:20 am

Illinois ratifies Equal Rights Amendment — decades after deadline
........
The Illinois House passed the measure 72-45, the Chicago Tribune reported. The state Senate had voted in favor of ratification last month, and it does not require the support of Gov. Bruce Rauner (R).

The passage sets the stage for a possible legal battle over the amendment since Congress’s deadline for states to ratify the amendment expired in 1982.

But supporters argue that because a 1789 amendment was ratified more than two centuries later in 1992, the Equal Rights Amendment could still be added to the Constitution, the Tribune noted.

Congress approved the amendment in 1972. But only 35 states ratified it ahead of the deadline, three short of the number required to add it to the Constitution.

Nevada similarly ratified the Equal Rights Amendment last year after the deadline. <SNIP>
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch ... r-deadline


Avatar by Tal Peleg Art of Makeup https://www.facebook.com/TalPelegMakeUp

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 6447
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#6

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Thu May 31, 2018 10:20 am

RoadScholar wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 9:24 am
So, what does (or did) the "deadline" mean? Is ratification only symbolic at this point, or if one more state ratifies it, does it go into effect? :think:
These articles describe the deadline issue. Wikipedia has Supreme Court citations.

https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012 ... -congress/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24005
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#7

Post by bob » Thu May 31, 2018 11:28 am

The short answer is: If Congress resolved to extend/abolish the amendment's deadline (and accept the states' ratifications), the courts would likely deem it a political question, and abstain from acting.

"If Congress," however, is doing all of the work because this session of Congress certainly isn't going to do anything.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 9945
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#8

Post by Notorial Dissent » Thu May 31, 2018 12:24 pm

At this point I don't think it really matters much or until 38 ratifies. And it will matter which party is in majority when it happens. GOP SOL, Dem time limit probably extended. Congress went to time limiting them to keep them from lingering. I don't know if that is actually constitutionally allowed or not.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43725
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#9

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu May 31, 2018 12:35 pm

If Congress were to act now and eliminate the deadline, that would suck all of the oxygen out of politics for months, something the Republicans desperately need. However, much of the Republican base believes as Phyllis Schlafly did and is unalterably opposed to the ERA.



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 9945
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#10

Post by Notorial Dissent » Thu May 31, 2018 1:04 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 12:35 pm
If Congress were to act now and eliminate the deadline, that would suck all of the oxygen out of politics for months, something the Republicans desperately need. However, much of the Republican base believes as Phyllis Schlafly did and is unalterably opposed to the ERA.
That was something I never understood. Phyllis always came across to me as shrill and strident, and I never understood her beliefs. Then again these are the same people who earnestly believe that transsexuals are perverts and child molesters. So I really shouldn't be surprised.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

noblepa
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Network Engineer

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#11

Post by noblepa » Thu May 31, 2018 1:18 pm

Further complicating the issue, is that four states voted to rescind their ratification.

It has never been adjudicated whether or not a state can rescind its ratification of a proposed amendment. If those rescissions are upheld (SCOTUS?), then there are only 33 valid ratifications, even if you get past the deadline issue. That means that they need five more states to ratify.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43725
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#12

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu May 31, 2018 1:29 pm

noblepa wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 1:18 pm
Further complicating the issue, is that four states voted to rescind their ratification.

It has never been adjudicated whether or not a state can rescind its ratification of a proposed amendment. If those rescissions are upheld (SCOTUS?), then there are only 33 valid ratifications, even if you get past the deadline issue. That means that they need five more states to ratify.
We don't know. SCOTUS would probably punt this to Congress to resolve. But maybe not.



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 9945
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#13

Post by Notorial Dissent » Thu May 31, 2018 1:35 pm

noblepa wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 1:18 pm
Further complicating the issue, is that four states voted to rescind their rI already atification.

It has never been adjudicated whether or not a state can rescind its ratification of a proposed amendment. If those rescissions are upheld (SCOTUS?), then there are only 33 valid ratifications, even if you get past the deadline issue. That means that they need five more states to ratify.
Unless I have misunderstood that has been long settled. The states ONLY have the option to accept or decline, but once they accept no backsies, that has already been done and settled with the 16th.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24005
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#14

Post by bob » Thu May 31, 2018 6:15 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 12:24 pm
At this point I don't think it really matters much or until 38 ratifies.
The states that have not ratified: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.

Virginia, IIRC, is being targeted at the "last" state.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Fortinbras
Posts: 2586
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#15

Post by Fortinbras » Thu May 31, 2018 11:52 pm

My recollection is that the ratifications of the ERA had a life expectancy of only 7 years (until March 1979), rather than in perpetuity like the 27th, and a 1978 law extending that life expectancy to June 1982 was declared invalid by Idaho v. Freeman (D.Idaho 1981) 529 F.Supp 1107, which itself was vacated as moot, so the question is sort of murky. After the 1978 extension there were no additional ratifications. It would appear that, by the terms attached to the original (1972) Congressional proposal of the ERA, all the (35) ratifications have expired and would have to be re-enacted by state legislatures plus 3 more to make the requisite 38 ratifications for adoption.



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 25797
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#16

Post by Addie » Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:08 am

ABA Journal - May 31
Is it too late to pass the Equal Rights Amendment? Illinois is the 37th state to ratify it ...

University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone tells the Chicago Tribune it’s unclear whether the amendment could still be added to the Constitution. He says there are already many federal laws giving women equal rights, but the amendment would lock in those protections and “would make some difference in marginal cases where the law allows discrimination today.”

Some supporters say the deadline is a dead issue in light of the 1992 ratification of the so-called Madison Amendment preventing midterm changes in congressional pay—an amendment first proposed in 1789 and submitted to the states for ratification.

There was no deadline for ratification of the Madison Amendment, but Congress’ promulgation of the amendment in 1992 showed it believed it had the authority to determine whether the time lapse meant the amendment was no longer valid, according to an article in the William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law.

Likewise, Congress could determine that the Equal Rights Amendment is still viable, the article argues.

Another view in favor of ERA viability is that time limits in a proposing clause of an amendment are irrelevant because states ratify the amendment, and not the proposing clause, the article says.


¡Qué vergüenza!

User avatar
Fortinbras
Posts: 2586
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#17

Post by Fortinbras » Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:43 am

Checking the original Act of Congress, the Joint Resolution proposing the ERA, issued on 22 March 1972, 86 Stat.L. 1523, the Resolving clause made the ERA a part of the Constitution "when ratified .... within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress." This put a deadline of 21 March 1979 on the accumulation of state ratifications. There was, in October 1978, another Resolution that extended the deadline and prolonged the existing ratifications to 30 June 1982 - yet during that additional four years no additional state ratification was obtained. There was subsequent litigation that challenged the validity of the 1978 extension, in which the first court decision invalidated the extension, on appeal that court decision was set aside on the grounds that the issue was moot, leaving the question unsettled. But with even the extension exhausted, it would seem that the Congressional deadline has come and gone by (nearly) forty years, no matter how you might look at it.



Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”