The United States needs to revive and pass The Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution

[ruggerson]

The last time around, Phyllis Schlafly and her cohorts killed it. Here we are thirty plus years later, and, while things have improved, women are still too often treated in the workplace, in the Court system, and by their own government as second class citizens.

It's long past time to stand on the twisted patchwork of laws that ostensibly prevent gender discrimination and reach for the brass ring:

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


This needs to be constitutional law. Nothing less is acceptable.

[marmar]

1. D'accord.

:thumbsup:

[leftstreet]

2. And the word 'sex' needs to be replaced with 'gender'

That annoyed me back in the day, and still does

K&R for human rights

[texastoast]

3. Hear hear

Schlafly's son is busy writing a bible for conservatives. I guess Jesus is just too liberal.

[dsc]

4. it would be nice and is necessary

but also unfortunately, not going to happen any time soon.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. Be careful what you wish for.

Can you name some examples where US law, policy and the budget is discriminatory based on gender? I can name several.

[eShirl]

8. Screw "careful."

Seriously.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. Okee dokee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/equity/index.html
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-293

I'd be intrigued to learn how any of those could be constitutional if ERA passes.

[eShirl]

14. They will need to apply the laws equally to all genders.

[terrya]

6. Agreed.

And, I'm ashamed to say, Illinois was one of the states that didn't ratify it back in the 70's. Primarily because of that hateful shrew Phyllis Schafly.

But Illinois is a different place today. A new ERA would be ratified in Illinois.

[eShirl]

7. only 3 more states need to ratify it

http://www.eracampaign.net/about.html

-snip-

NEW HOPE: THE "THREE-STATE" STRATEGY

In the 1990's, a promising new strategy for achieving the ERA arose. In 1992, the "Madison" Amendment, concerning congressional pay raises, became the 27th Amendment to the Constitution after a ratification period of 203 years. This established a precedent such that there should be no constitutional objection to an ERA ratification period longer than the current few decades.

Also, Congress, when it first passed the ERA in 1972, chose to impose a 7-year ratification time limit, but not in the binding text of the amendment itself. In 1978, a later Congress extended that time limit three years, to 1982, thus establishing the precedent that Congress has the power to do so. A strong argument can therefore be made that any session of Congress could, by a simple majority in both houses, extend (or eliminate) the currently expired ratification time limit on the ERA, such that just three more state ratifications would add the ERA to the Constitution.

Note: The 35 existing state ratifications should stand, because under Article V of the Constitution and confirmed by precedent, states that have once ratified an amendment do not have the power to rescind that ratification. (The 15 not-yet-ratified states are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.)

Thus the "3-state strategy" was launched, recognizing the likelihood of opposition from those who still oppose equal rights for women, but buoyed by authoritative analyses supporting its legal validity. Today, the 3-state strategy is gaining more and more attention, and a major new activist push for the ERA is growing rapidly.

-snip-

[dsc]

10. I can't think of three states on that list which would ratify that amendment

NC just went GOP so we are out. I could see Illinois and maybe Nevada but then, where is the third state?

[eShirl]

11. One at a time.

[NC_Nurse]

9. If we couldn't pass it 30 years ago, I have a hard time seeing it pass now. Things

are currently regressing at an alarming pace in this country.

But I gave a rec because I totally agree. I wish I had faith that people here still gave a shit about equal rights (and I don't mean here at DU, I mean the U.S. in general).

[progressoid]

13. Sadly I agree

We are in a worse political state now than we were then.

Sad.

[47of74]

15. And leave out the part that says that it expires if not ratified in a certain amount of time

[eShirl]

16. There is precedent that Congress can revise that w/ a simple majority.