Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

Addie
Posts: 44558
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#26

Post by Addie »

Delaware Public Media
State ERA Amendment now part of Delaware Constitution

Delaware now has a state Equal Rights Amendment. The 16-word amendment bars discrimination based on sex.

It cleared the Senate 16 to 5. Republican Sens. Bryant Richardson, Dave Lawson, Brian Pettyjohn, David Wilson and Gerald Hocker voted no.

House Majority Leader Valerie Longhurst, who has spent more than two years working to pass it, said she’s overwhelmed by the accomplishment.

“To say we have equal rights in the state of Delaware today, at this moment, going forward," she said. "Doesn’t have to be signed into law, it is law.”

Richardson said he’s against the state ERA because judges are not accountable to the voters like lawmakers and there could be unintended consequences from this change to the state’s constitution.

The ERA’s Senate sponsor State Sen. Stephanie Hansen dismisses Richardson’s concerns. She said judges interpret laws.

“Again, we go back to this issue of intent," she said. "We have now language in the bill that says this is our intent.”


Addie
Posts: 44558
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#27

Post by Addie »

Associated Press
Panel votes down Equal Rights Amendment in Virginia

Efforts to make Virginia the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment encountered a setback Tuesday following a subcommittee vote in the state's Republican-controlled Legislature.

The nation's supporters of the gender-equality amendment have been hoping this increasingly blue state will approve the ERA at a critical moment in their campaign to revive the measure, which is nearly half a century old.

ERA proponents say ratification by 38 states would meet the U.S. Constitution's threshold for approval. But it would also likely spark battles in the courts and Congress over a long-passed 1982 deadline and various other legal issues.

Measures to ratify the ERA in Virginia were voted down in a subcommittee for the House of Delegates' Privileges and Elections Committee. Proponents say there still may be a chance the measure can be voted out of the full committee Friday.


Addie
Posts: 44558
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#28

Post by Addie »

WaPo
This woman just derailed the Equal Rights Amendment yet again

It’s 2019, a surge of women just won election to Congress and the Virginia legislature, and it looks like the Equal Rights Amendment may be stopped dead in its tracks again.

By a woman. Again.

Meet the new Phyllis Schlafly: Victoria Cobb, who says she achieved all her success before reaching her 40th birthday without help from any amendment, so the rest of American women don’t need it, either.

“I’m a third-generation opponent of the ERA, actually,” she told me, when I asked her if she’s today’s Schlafly, the ultraconservative woman who led the charge in derailing the amendment in the 1970s by convincing America that women would be drafted into combat and toilets would all be unisex if the amendment passed.

The ERA, first written 95 years ago, regained new momentum in this #MeToo era after years of dormancy. And Virginia was poised to become the 38th state to ratify it, filling in that three-quarters majority of states required for it to become official. In Richmond, the GOP-led Senate passed the ERA bill earlier this month. And celebrities, lawmakers and activists were touting its revival on Capitol Hill in Washington.

But then a tiny subcommittee in Richmond — the House Privileges and Elections subcommittee — voted along party lines to block the amendment from reaching the House floor after heavy lobbying from Cobb, president of the conservative Family Foundation of Virginia. (Among the yes votes were two men, by the way. Yay, men!)


Addie
Posts: 44558
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#29

Post by Addie »

WaPo
ERA bill dies for good in GOP-controlled Virginia House of Delegates

RICHMOND — The Republican-controlled House of Delegates killed Democrats’ last-ditch efforts to pass the Equal Rights Amendment on Thursday, as advocates promised retribution at the ballot box.

Democrats had hoped to use procedural measures to force Republicans to take a floor vote on the amendment for the first time. After the effort failed, ERA opponents in the gallery overlooking the chamber clapped.

Then an ERA supporter, also in the gallery, shouted, “Shame on Virginia!”

“I am disgusted by this vote, absolutely disgusted,” another yelled.

The amendment has been the focus of protests and heated debates throughout the 46-day General Assembly session, which ends Saturday.

It drew international attention this week when a judge ordered a protester jailed without bond after she revealed her breast outside the Virginia Capitol in a reenactment of the scene depicted on the state seal. The judge reversed himself Thursday morning, and the woman, Michelle Renay Sutherland, was released.


User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 29094
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#30

Post by RTH10260 »

North Dakota moves to nullify its 1975 Equal Rights support
By JAMES MacPHERSON
March 29, 2019

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — North Dakota’s male-dominated Legislature is considering a resolution to nullify its 1975 support of the Equal Rights Amendment, a move seen as offsetting revived efforts nationally to enshrine the nearly half-century-old measure in the U.S. Constitution.

The resolution sponsored by seven male Republican lawmakers says Congress’ deadline for ratification of the gender-equality amendment passed 40 years ago and is no longer valid.

If the resolution is approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature, North Dakota would join Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee and South Dakota as states that ratified the amendment and later withdrew their support. The other states rescinded their support by 1979, though it’s not clear their withdrawal was valid.


https://apnews.com/3c6dafcf623d4cb29b10f850506a4381


User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 29094
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#31

Post by RTH10260 »



User avatar
Lani
Posts: 6601
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:01 pm
Location: Some island in the Pacific

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#32

Post by Lani »

Caroline Orr
@RVAwonk
With Democrats taking full control of the Virginia legislature tonight, the state is poised to become the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, which means it will finally become an official part of the US Constitution! #VirginiaVotes #VAelections

I worked so hard for this in Virginia. I can die happy if this happens.


User avatar
Lani
Posts: 6601
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:01 pm
Location: Some island in the Pacific

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#33

Post by Lani »

Those legislators are expected to bring the ERA vote to the floor in January 2020 -- and this time, ratify it. This would supply the final, 38th state needed to ratify the amendment, passed by Congress in 1972. Earlier this year in Virginia, the measure lost -- by one vote.

What would the ERA do? It would amend the US Constitution to include simply this: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
Deliberately left out of the Constitution when it was written, women have paid the price in opportunities, rights and protections ever since.
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/11/04/op ... l%26pn%3D1


User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 31717
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: District Court of Bun-Dogs
Occupation: Devilish Hyena
Avatar: Silly engineers have been using 3D printers to make Godzilla arms for chickens.

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#34

Post by Foggy »

OMG, that would be so awesome and important.

:pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray:


I hope y'all are still wearing your seat belts!
Addie
Posts: 44558
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#35

Post by Addie »

:like:
Lani wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:16 am I can die happy if this happens.


User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 10224
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#36

Post by neonzx »

Crazy insane and exciting! I can't believe this was sent to the states almost 50 years ago for ratification. :shock:

Go go, Virgina!


User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 31717
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: District Court of Bun-Dogs
Occupation: Devilish Hyena
Avatar: Silly engineers have been using 3D printers to make Godzilla arms for chickens.

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#37

Post by Foggy »

An attorney friend on Facebook says:
That is Not automatic; that Will go to the Supreme Court. The amendment as-passed-by-Congress had a 7-yr deadline, which was not met. Some states rescinded their ratifications. The legality of all that will have to be addressed.
We may have to start all over again. :madguy:


I hope y'all are still wearing your seat belts!
User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 14142
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#38

Post by Notorial Dissent »

Foggy wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:01 am An attorney friend on Facebook says:
That is Not automatic; that Will go to the Supreme Court. The amendment as-passed-by-Congress had a 7-yr deadline, which was not met. Some states rescinded their ratifications. The legality of all that will have to be addressed.
We may have to start all over again. :madguy:
There was a time limit set on it by Congress. The legal issue is going to be can they do that? Since the courts have determined that the Constitution ONLY gives the States the option to accept or reject an amendment and no take backsies once they do, then mayhaps the Constitution ONLY gives the Congress the option to send it forth to the States, with no option for limitation on time, there is certainly NO option in the document. Precedent certainly was until relatively modern times for NO limit.


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
Foggy
Posts: 31717
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: District Court of Bun-Dogs
Occupation: Devilish Hyena
Avatar: Silly engineers have been using 3D printers to make Godzilla arms for chickens.

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#39

Post by Foggy »

Yabbut ... that's issue No. 1. Issue No. 2 is, can a state rescind its ratification of an amendment?

And I know I don't need to point out that there's a majority of conservative males on the court. I think I can tell you right now how the white rapist and the black sexual harasser will vote.


I hope y'all are still wearing your seat belts!
User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 14142
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#40

Post by Notorial Dissent »

I think the can rescind part has been settled courtesy of one of the more notable TP's over the 16th, conclusion, once ratified it's done, also it's the amendment not the wording that State's approve.

I think the issue will be the time limit, and yes, I agree on your USSC comments.


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
noblepa
Posts: 1359
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Network Engineer

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#41

Post by noblepa »

Foggy wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:32 pm Yabbut ... that's issue No. 1. Issue No. 2 is, can a state rescind its ratification of an amendment?

And I know I don't need to point out that there's a majority of conservative males on the court. I think I can tell you right now how the white rapist and the black sexual harasser will vote.
Will the court even take the case?

In the past, they have sidestepped questions about ratification, on the grounds that it is a political, not legal, question. In a case involving the 19th Amendment, they ruled that, effectively, an amendment is ratified when the Secretary of State says it is.

That raises another possibility. Our current SOS is very much in Trump's pocket. If Virginia WERE to ratify the ERA, he might simply decide that either the time limit or the rescision by several states renders the amendment dead and, therefore, not ratified.

If SCOTUS leaves it up to Pompeo, I'd bet that he will decide that it has not been ratified. Trump doesn't want it, and Pompeo won't defy his boss.


User avatar
Azastan
Posts: 4577
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:42 am

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#42

Post by Azastan »

noblepa wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2019 2:03 pm
Will the court even take the case?

In the past, they have sidestepped questions about ratification, on the grounds that it is a political, not legal, question. In a case involving the 19th Amendment, they ruled that, effectively, an amendment is ratified when the Secretary of State says it is.

That raises another possibility. Our current SOS is very much in Trump's pocket. If Virginia WERE to ratify the ERA, he might simply decide that either the time limit or the rescision by several states renders the amendment dead and, therefore, not ratified.

If SCOTUS leaves it up to Pompeo, I'd bet that he will decide that it has not been ratified. Trump doesn't want it, and Pompeo won't defy his boss.
Perhaps that is why it's going to be 2020 before VA tackles the ratification.


User avatar
bob
Posts: 30400
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#43

Post by bob »

Azastan wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2019 2:09 pmPerhaps that is why it's going to be 2020 before VA tackles the ratification.
I infer it is going in 2020 because that's when new legislative session will start.


IIRC, the issues of both rescission and time limits are fairly settled; going to court over them would be just for delay and the sour grapes.

If the SOSOTUS refuses declines to certify, however, is more interesting. Presumably a petition for writ of mandate would be filed (by ... someone) toot sweet.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
Addie
Posts: 44558
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#44

Post by Addie »

Nadler.house.gov - (press release)
Chairman Nadler Announces Next Step in Effort to Ratify the Equal Rights Amendment
Washington, November 8, 2019

Washington, D.C. – Today, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) announced that the House Judiciary Committee would be marking up H.J.Res. 79 to eliminate the ratification deadline for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). The markup, scheduled for Wednesday, November 13th, represents the next step to clear the path for ratifying the ERA and enshrining equality for both sexes into the U.S. Constitution. The markup follows Tuesday’s election results in Virginia, which changed the makeup of the state legislature and improved the prospects for Virginia to become the thirty-eighth and final state needed to ratify the amendment, meeting the 3/4 threshold for being adopted as a new amendment written into the Constitution. Passing H.J.Res. 79 would carve out a legal path for Virginia’s vote by eliminating a deadline set by Congress in 1972, which it extended in 1978

"The ERA would affirm and strengthen the rights of women in our Constitution," said Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). "Congress created this deadline and, it is clear, Congress has every authority to remove it now. After decades of work by tireless advocates, it is time for Congress to act and clear the way for Virginia, or any other state, to finally ratify the ERA and for discrimination on the basis of sex to be forever barred by the Constitution."

"I am honored and thrilled that the Judiciary Committee is marking up my resolution to facilitate the expeditious ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. This is a pivotal moment in our nation’s history and in the fight for equality. It’s a moment that will be recorded in the history books as a time when Chairman Nadler and our colleagues on the committee worked to protect and advance the rights of more than half of the citizenry and voted for women and girls to finally see themselves in our Constitution," said Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), co-chair of the Democratic Women’s Caucus.

"The momentum to finally ratify the Equal Rights Amendment just keeps growing stronger," said Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY). "I am thrilled the House is moving forward the resolution to eliminate the ratification deadline. After the amazing victories in Virginia to elect a pro-ERA majority in the state legislature, we have never been closer to enshrining women’s equality in our Constitution. Tireless advocates across the country have brought us to this point, and I am proud to support this important step in the House."

"Everyone should be treated equally under the law, but the U.S. Constitution does not currently guarantee women the same rights and protections as men. I’m proud that Alaska was among the early adopters, having both ratified the Equal Rights Amendment and amended the State’s Constitution to prohibit discrimination in 1972. But for that to happen at a national level, we need one more state to ratify. There’s absolutely no reason to put a time-limit on the ability for that to happen," said Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). "Congress can and should amend the language to remove the deadline for ratification to ensure gender-based equality is not only supported across the U.S., but also legally recognized. I will continue my efforts, alongside Senator Cardin and so many of my colleagues, to ensure the Equal Rights Amendment is finally added to the Constitution."

"We will ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. The question is no longer if, but when. Most Americans are surprised to learn that the ERA is not already part of the U.S. Constitution, so it's high time the Congress step up and help make that happen. Congress needs to voteon our resolutions to formally removedeadline for ratifying the ERA," said Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD).

A copy of H.J.Res. 79 can be found here.


User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2776
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#45

Post by Res Ipsa »

Foy says laws can change and court rulings can be reversed, so she's sponsoring a bill to make Virginia the 38th, and final, state.
[/quote]

Constitutional amendments can be rescinded as well, if you want to get picky. e.g. Amendment 18


Thanks pal.
User avatar
Fortinbras
Posts: 2950
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#46

Post by Fortinbras »

The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) required the adoption of the 21st Amendment to repeal it. IF the ERA is considered adopted, then only another, anti-ERA, amendment could un-adopt it, and the chances of sufficient state legislatures voting to repeal the ERA are slim.

There is, however, some serious question about the apparent deadlines set forth in the Resolutions proposing/extending the ERA. The 1978 extension even allowed states that had ratified it to revoke their ratification. There will probably be litigation over those terms and I expect the courts will say that Congress has the final word on whether or not the ERA got sufficient valid ratifications.


User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 14142
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#47

Post by Notorial Dissent »

I think, well know really, that Nadler is absolutely wasting his, and the House's, time. That HRJ will NEVER EVER see the light of day in the current Senate, let alone pass. I also think that it, like the 1978 bill, is unconstitutional as I don't think there is a Constitutional power to time limit a proposed amendment.


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
Suranis
Posts: 18898
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#48

Post by Suranis »

Wasn't the Sovcits favourite TONA "Real 13th" Amendment junked because it took too long to be ratified?

And, lets be honest, 50 years os way too long for something to be sitting around waiting for ratifications, at least in my view. The law will probably disagree with me, as usual.


The difference between the Middle Ages, and the Age of the Internet, is that in the Middle Ages no-one thought the Earth was flat.
User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 14142
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#49

Post by Notorial Dissent »

Comes from sovcits NOT being able to reliably count or do simple math, or read plain English. The amendment in question is still on unlife support, but not EVER likely to pass in to life. It has NEVER received the requisite number of state votes (3/4) and at this late date not ever going to, currently sitting at 12 since 1812, so will just linger on in that non-life of amendments never ratified. There are six currently so on unlife support.

According to Coleman v. Miller, 307 U. S. 433 (1939) Congress can set a sell by date, political question, so my opinion to the contrary is wrong.


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
Northland10
Posts: 10069
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#50

Post by Northland10 »

Suranis wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:33 am And, lets be honest, 50 years os way too long for something to be sitting around waiting for ratifications, at least in my view. The law will probably disagree with me, as usual.
The 27th Amendment took 202 years to ratify.


North-land: of the family 10.5

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”