Do you think that the ERA is obsolete/not needed now?

[wovenpaint]

I posted this thread in GD today because it's been on my mind lately.

I was appalled when I realized that my daughter, and her friends, had little or no idea of what I was talking about when I spoke of the ERA amendment last year while getting ready to go to the March for Women in DC.

I'm really interested in what others have to say about this....from women and men.

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4174555

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Relevant and needed.

As we all have been reminded, if something is not in the Constitution via an Amendment, it can be ignored as though it does not exist.

Civil rights for women and the recognition of their signficance is something that is inherent in other laws that were passed in Congress and the states and recognized by "activist judges" in the past. But seriously, if you had a strict constructionist on the Supreme Court bench, looking for the right of women for self-autonomy and the right to exist as full citizens in the Constitution, s/he would have to rule against the women.

Think of all the freedoms that could be gone with the snap of the fingers. Look at Iraq's "new" Constitution and see the status of women therein. The only difference is that at least they had the balls to actually say that men have the right to discriminate against women wholesale in their country.

[TaleWgnDg]

2. Legally speaking, women are not protected in our federal . . .

.
Legally speaking, women are not protected in our federal . . . constitution. There are no express words that protect women in the entire constitution except the right to vote amendment, period.

One may suggest that the word "person" or "citizen" protects women in the 14th amendment; however, the courts do not construe gender discrimination in the same manner, i.e., "strict scrutiny," as the courts construe race discrimination. And so it goes, as well, with federal statutory laws. No where does the legal standard rise to protect women as when there would be an "Equal Rights Amendment" (ERA) to the federal constitution:

"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/


.

[TaleWgnDg]

3. If you are curious, take a gander here too . . .

.
If you are curious, take a gander here too . . .

Are your U.S. Senators sponsor/co-sponsor this bill? How about your U.S. Representative?

Go to: (1) http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d108query.html, (2) enter the words "S. J. Res. 11" in the box marked "Bill, Amendment, or Public Law Number," and then (3) hit "search"






.

[omega minimo]

4. ERA corrects an outdated oversight encoded into the Constitution

Women were not included in:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created Equal."

Women were not considered even 3/5ths of a man. Women were not considered.

So, yes, this will affirm the intention of the Framers as it is understood now; it will encode 'the radical notion that women are people."

Women now are expected to assume that the words "Man" and "Men" includes us. However, that is not what the Framers meant-- women were not equal, were not considered part of the state of Men's affairs, were nearly invisible-- overlooked, an afterthought....


From the thread linked above in the OP:

"In principle: It is necessary to have specific language in the Constitution affirming the principle of equal rights on the basis of sex because for more than two centuries, women have had to fight long and hard political battles to win rights that men possessed automatically because they were male.

"The first – and still the only – right that the Constitution specifically affirms equally for women and men is the right to vote. Alice Paul introduced the ERA in 1923 to expand that affirmation to all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution."


The only reason that the Constitution specifically affirms equally-- for women and men-- the right to vote, is AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. The ERA as a Constitutional amendment is neither redundant or frivolous (as DUer implied on the linked thread that the ERA amounts to unecessary tinkering with the Sacred Document.)

[Finder]

5. The quote you use is from the Declaration of Independence.

The Constitution uses "People" or "Citizens" regarding rights.

[omega minimo]

6. Does the Declaration provide context

for interpretation of the Constitution?

[omega minimo]

7. If the Constitution were neutral re: "Citizens"

how were women and African-Americans excluded from voting?

[Finder]

8. The 14th amendment was the first...

to use the word "male" as far as voting rights. Some women did vote as early as 1776 in some states.(NJ for one) In 1868 the wording of the US constitution excluded females although some did continue to vote. Voting was originally a state issue(sufferage)It became a federal one after the 14th amendment.

[omega minimo]

9. Semi-boggled

What's your take on the OP?

[Finder]

10. Symbolically, it would be wonderful but legally we are covered.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Following sections have the word male as well as the age of 21 and both have been amended since. The 19th amendment takes care of the voting discrimination.

Amendment XIX

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.


Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[omega minimo]

11. Would a specific amendment to the Constitution

preclude a goodly portion of the due diligence and perpetual litigation that being "legally" covered requires?

Potentially?

[Finder]

12. From what I can tell, most challenges are at the state level

and certain states at that. I think pushing ERA at this point will push the religious right to get the marriage amendment passed and goddess knows what else. However, I think if we get local laws and state constitutions to include language that cannot be challenged then any changes proposed on the fed level will be without controversy.

The feminist movement should be putting their energies into congressional elections and local offices. That is why the fundies are gaining ground these days--they are stacking the legistlative deck.

I am not saying ERA is a waste of time, just that at this time it is not the basket to be tossing all our eggs into.

Federally, we need feminists in the Depts. of labor, education and health.

Sorry to ramble.

[omega minimo]

14. Ramble on

Down on the ground (grass roots) is a good way to go. And we know the Fundies started infiltrating school boards back when.....

Thanks for correcting my slip. Maybe you know: after all these years, the ERA is reviveable? No expiration period?

If we don't need the ERA and if it is redundant, why did so many states ratify it?

Thanks Finder. And I think I got your other point too.... :hi:

[LissaM]

13. I have a question...

I was wondering if there would be another March for Women this year at all. I would LOVE to attend!!

If you have any more info, please please please let me know. I don't care where it is, it is fairly easy for me to get around the country, and I would love to attend a pro-women event!!!! Thank yoU! :)