Should the Equal Rights Amendment Be Passed?

[Patine]

These are not fair comparisons.

Actually, isn't it already illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex? I thought that was illegal since before I was old enough to understand the concept. I know that racial/age/height/sex/etc discrimination all still happen, but to my knowledge this is a matter of enforcement rather than these things being allowed by law. Is that mistaken, was I mislead in my human resources course work?

Then that means there's a LOT of unpunished lawbreakers. Men and women are routinely, in many industries, paid differently for the same work, and no one is punished and there's no legal recourse. And there are jobs that will have overt, out-of-their hiring of men over women (or vice versa, in a few cases), and again, no one is punished, and nothing changes. And technically, the Freemasons, Roman Catholic Priesthood, American Islamic Imamate and Jewish Rabbinate, the Master's Golf Club in Georgia, a fair number of country clubs and small town lodges, etc., as well as, conversely, the Daughters of Job, the Daughters of the Revolution, the 4H Club, etc. should all be disallowed from barring the other gender in the U.S. And ALL schools, even private ones, should all be mandatorily co-ed. And you could push things even further beyond that.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Then that means there's a LOT of unpunished lawbreakers. Men and women are routinely, in many industries, paid differently for the same work, and no one is punished and there's no legal recourse.

So, what does ERA going through change about this, in practice? Sometimes the reasons men/women are paid differently are legitimate (#hours worked, for example), sometimes they are not. When they are not, what changes with ERA active?

And technically, the Freemasons, Roman Catholic Priesthood, American Islamic Imamate and Jewish Rabbinate, the Master's Golf Club in Georgia, a fair number of country clubs and small town lodges, etc., as well as, conversely, the Daughters of Job, the Daughters of the Revolution, the 4H Club, etc. should all be disallowed from barring the other gender in the U.S.

Do you feel that way? Is this covered under ERA? One of the rights afforded to both men and women is freedom of association. I could see a strong argument if a particular place of employment had a demonstrated bias for only or mostly promoting Freemasons. That would be illegal.

I don't see much validity in forcing the Freemasons themselves to allow people they don't want. If ERA enforcement attempts that it will likely be struck down as unconstitutional, and rightly so.

 

[Patine]

So, what does ERA going through change about this, in practice? Sometimes the reasons men/women are paid differently are legitimate (#hours worked, for example), sometimes they are not. When they are not, what changes with ERA active?



Do you feel that way? Is this covered under ERA? One of the rights afforded to both men and women is freedom of association. I could see a strong argument if a particular place of employment had a demonstrated bias for only or mostly promoting Freemasons. That would be illegal.

I don't see much validity in forcing the Freemasons themselves to allow people they don't want. If ERA enforcement attempts that it will likely be struck down as unconstitutional, and rightly so.

Then, to play the Devil's Advocate, isn't it technically unconstitutional to legally target someone for "association" with ISIS, or the Los Zetas Cartel, or GRU or Anonymous hackers, for example, if no specific CRIME of your doing and volition can be nailed on you?

 

[Estebonrober]

It's true that having people who don't have resources deciding freely where resources should be allocated has awkward incentives, but it doesn't make sense to stratify that based on sex because there are plenty of very productive women and plenty of deadbeat men and vice versa. I don't see how voting vs not is relevant to ERA in particular.

This amendment is likely to have unintended consequences as I pointed out earlier in the thread.

Everything has unintended consequences that is never an excuse for inaction more so when inaction leads to a continued wrong.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Then, to play the Devil's Advocate, isn't it technically unconstitutional to legally target someone for "association" with ISIS, or the Los Zetas Cartel, or GRU or Anonymous hackers, for example, if no specific CRIME of your doing and volition can be nailed on you?

Probably? I was under the impression that these folks are generally observed specifically waiting for evidence of conspiracy to commit crime (ideally) or a criminal act (less ideal) plus the possibility to capture more of them. Though to be a hacker you have to hack, and that's usually at least some level of illegal.

Everything has unintended consequences that is never an excuse for inaction more so when inaction leads to a continued wrong.

I pointed out that some of these consequences can hurt the people supposedly being protected by ERA. I've also asked what, precisely, changes about how organizations treat men/women differently as a result of ERA. It's not clear to me what would since discrimination based on sex is already illegal in public settings. Saying it's illegal again doesn't appear to accomplish anything, but maybe I'm missing something special.

The burden here is demonstrating how ERA changes anything for the better. I can "take action" by digging holes in my back yard, but that won't improve many peoples' lives. Even if someone suggests otherwise.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

If enough states ratify the ERA and it is not further altered, then in theory, the new congress shouldn’t be able to touch it. However, the current administration already does illegal things so…

Anyway, my 2016 prediction was correct!

 

[CKS]

The real problem is that the deadline to ratify it was 40 years ago, so another state ratifying it doesn't make any difference.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The deadline is not constitutionally binding and at best would have to be upheld by the courts after a lengthy battle. It's not a given that the ammendment would not be binding if passed by a few more states. Similarly, the regressive tactic of state legislators rescinding their states previous approval is not constitutionally binding.

 

[CKS]

The courts haven't ruled that it isn't binding, nor have they ruled that states can't take back their approval. I think that they should rule that states can't take back their approval, but the SC rarely rules the way I think they should. Congress passed it saying, "We approve it if the states approve it by 1979". That isn't the same as, "We approve it."

 

[Patine]

The real problem is that the deadline to ratify it was 40 years ago, so another state ratifying it doesn't make any difference.

No, the REAL problem is much deeper. The immense difficulty in making any change to the U.S. Constitution at all has caused a document that was a stellar, glorious, shining example of governance and legal accomplishment unmatched in the world by far in 1787 to have fallen behind most other First World Nations today and become an anachronistic, clunky, inefficient, backward relic which just wouldn't even be able to govern the United States as it is AT ALL today without a lot of de facto operation by government (of both major parties) outside it's stated limits and parameters - and even then, a movement of Constitutional "orginalists," "purists," and "libertarians," want to end those indulgences, even though the nation would completely internally collapse if such a thing were done.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The deadline is not constitutionally binding and at best would have to be upheld by the courts after a lengthy battle. It's not a given that the ammendment would not be binding if passed by a few more states. Similarly, the regressive tactic of state legislators rescinding their states previous approval is not constitutionally binding.

If a deadline as part of the proposal isn't binding, how is anything about the document binding? It is similarly nonsense that a state can't rescind approval prior to it passing, if states are allowed to give approval at any time. Too much inconsistency.

 

[Farm Boy]

If a deadline as part of the proposal isn't binding, how is anything about the document binding? It is similarly nonsense that a state can't rescind approval prior to it passing, if states are allowed to give approval at any time. Too much inconsistency.

I wouldn't want to be stuck trying to argue that. "You approved something different than what you voted to approve, and no you can't vote to rescind consent to the thing you didn't vote to approve."

Spoiler :

 

[rah]

Long overdue.
Even if it doesn't really change things, it's a positive statement that should be made.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

AFAIK the Constitution is silent on expiration and rescinding amendments but I'm glad conservatives feel they can rewrite the rules when they see fit. The last amendment to pass had like a 200 year gap between introduction and approval as well.

But again, the only precedents or rules that seem to matter in discussion of the Constitution with libertarians and conservatives are the rules and precedents they make up themselves or choose to honor. Henceforth I'll just shorthand this dismissively as 'similar nonsense'.

 

[Patine]

AFAIK the Constitution is silent on expiration and rescinding amendments but I'm glad conservatives feel they can rewrite the rules when they see fit. The last amendment to pass had like a 200 year gap between introduction and approval as well.

But again, the only precedents or rules that seem to matter in discussion of the Constitution with libertarians and conservatives are the rules and precedents they make up themselves or choose to honor. Henceforth I'll just shorthand this dismissively as 'similar nonsense'.

The U.S. Constitution itself needs an expiry date, and a new Convention to write a new one for the modern world and society. Even Thomas Jefferson agreed with that sentiment.

 

[Broken_Erika]

[Super-Duper-Patriot-America-F-Yeah-Mode]
B-B-But the constitution cannot be altered! It was written by God himself and given to Amercia by Jesus! It is Sacred! RABBLE-RABBLE-RABBLE-RABBLE-RABBLE!
[/Super-Duper-Patriot-America-F-Yeah-Mode]

 

[Estebonrober]

[Super-Duper-Patriot-America-F-Yeah-Mode]
B-B-But the constitution cannot be altered! It was written by God himself and given to Amercia by Jesus! It is Sacred! RABBLE-RABBLE-RABBLE-RABBLE-RABBLE!
[/Super-Duper-Patriot-America-F-Yeah-Mode]

So how long until this sentiment is actually believed by people because lord knows I see the memes around and it only took ten years for the 'murica joke to just become a badge of honor instead of the mockery it was intended to be.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

fuuuuuuuuuu


did i really write henceforth

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Trump can veto it, right? If so, I don't think this is getting passed with the current administration.

The president has no legal or constitutional role in the process of amending the constitution. It cannot veto it.

If I recall correctly, the only US President ever to sign a Constitutional Amendment was Abraham Lincoln, who tried to assuage the Southern elites by putting his signature on a proposed 13th amendment that if ratified would have forbidden slavery from ever being abolished in any state where it was still legal at that time.

 

[Broken_Erika]

The president has no legal or constitutional role in the process of amending the constitution. It cannot veto it.

Do you honestly think that will stop trump from trying? And you can bet the republicans will back him if he does.