Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16971
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#51

Post by Suranis » Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:04 pm

Wow. :shock:
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27214
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#52

Post by bob » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:08 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:47 am
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.
That's the point: Passing a bill knowing it'll die in the other chamber is an age-old electioneering gimmick.

Suranis wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:33 am
Wasn't the Sovcits favourite TONA "Real 13th" Amendment junked because it took too long to be ratified?
No. It never was ratified by two-thirds of the states. It came close a few times (when there were fewer states); and there's a sov-cit belief that (at various points) that some states had ("secretly") ratified it and pushed it over the threshold.

Like the ERA, the TONA could still be ratified. But it would now require like dozen states to ratify it.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12858
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#53

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:29 pm

bob wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:08 pm
Notorial Dissent wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:47 am
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.
That's the point: Passing a bill knowing it'll die in the other chamber is an age-old electioneering gimmick.

Suranis wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:33 am
Wasn't the Sovcits favourite TONA "Real 13th" Amendment junked because it took too long to be ratified?
No. It never was ratified by two-thirds of the states. It came close a few times (when there were fewer states); and there's a sov-cit belief that (at various points) that some states had ("secretly") ratified it and pushed it over the threshold.

Like the ERA, the TONA could still be ratified. But it would now require like dozen states to ratify it.
TONA would require 26 at this late date. Closest it ever got was 1812ish when it was 2-3 off, from then on not a chance as the gap ever widened.
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: 45051
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#54

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:38 pm

I think TONA only has 12 ratifying states. If so, wouldn't it need 63 more?

User avatar
Fortinbras
Posts: 2929
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

Re: Constitution: Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

#55

Post by Fortinbras » Sun Nov 10, 2019 10:59 pm

Not 63 more states (think about it) but 26. Back in 1814 it would have needed 14 ... 2 more than it had. But by that time, Betsy Patterson, "the Duchess of Baltimore", was no longer married to Jerome Bonaparte and had slipped into obscurity, so the enthusiasm for the TONA had evaporated.

Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”