Should the Equal Rights Amendment Be Passed?

[TheMeInTeam]

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'.

No, it's a serious question. If one part of a document isn't binding, why is any of it binding? There needs to be a reason for differentiation.

 

[Estebonrober]

No, it's a serious question. If one part of a document isn't binding, why is any of it binding? There needs to be a reason for differentiation.

This is exactly the similar nonsense he was referring to by the way.

 

[Farm Boy]

There needs to be a reason for differentiation.

Selfie filters.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This is exactly the similar nonsense he was referring to by the way.

The nonsense is claiming that only parts of a bill/amendment/video game rule/law/etc you like (or don't like) count, but not the other parts, without any coherent standard.

Or if there is a coherent standard, this is a good chance to present it because it would answer my question rather than avoid it.

 

[Patine]

The nonsense is claiming that only parts of a bill/amendment/video game rule/law/etc you like (or don't like) count, but not the other parts, without any coherent standard.

Or if there is a coherent standard, this is a good chance to present it because it would answer my question rather than avoid it.

You don't personally know any lawyers, do you?

 

[Estebonrober]

The nonsense is claiming that only parts of a bill/amendment/video game rule/law/etc you like (or don't like) count, but not the other parts, without any coherent standard.

Or if there is a coherent standard, this is a good chance to present it because it would answer my question rather than avoid it.

I guess I'd suggest you reread all our posts and realize that we are all talking about how there isn't a flat standard for this kind of thing and that this is going to be litigated as if it hasn't been litigated before. That precedent can easily go both ways. I'm actually on your side on the litigation of this topic although I believe in this amendment and would vote for it myself if I had the option.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The nonsense is claiming that only parts of a bill/amendment/video game rule/law/etc you like (or don't like) count, but not the other parts, without any coherent standard.

Or if there is a coherent standard, this is a good chance to present it because it would answer my question rather than avoid it.

You're the one who's reading new substance into the document and then projecting it on me. If the document's silent on stalled amendments, then it's silent on them. Plus, the 27th amendment was ratified almost 200 years after the process kicked off so not only are you reading into the document what you want to read, you're going against precedent; all the while claiming that I'm making stuff up.

There is no coherent standard on this process. Amendments are too rare and ad hoc for that and the documentation written down 200 years ago was incomplete and vague AF. You're invented this rigid standard out of whole clothe because that fits the issue in your mind into the neat logical box it belongs in.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You don't personally know any lawyers, do you?

I do know a few actually. A friend and a few in extended family. No constitutional law specialists though.

I guess I'd suggest you reread all our posts and realize that we are all talking about how there isn't a flat standard for this kind of thing and that this is going to be litigated as if it hasn't been litigated before. That precedent can easily go both ways. I'm actually on your side on the litigation of this topic although I believe in this amendment and would vote for it myself if I had the option.

I'm not only talking about the US standard. I'm also talking about a standard of self-consistency in argumentation of how something "should" work or happen.

You're the one who's reading new substance into the document and then projecting it on me. If the document's silent on stalled amendments, then it's silent on them. Plus, the 27th amendment was ratified almost 200 years after the process kicked off so not only are you reading into the document what you want to read, you're going against precedent; all the while claiming that I'm making stuff up.

The 27th amendment is a disingenuous example to this topic, because it didn't have a deadline in either its proposed language or what was ratified. Reading more carefully, ERA has a deadline as part of the proposal. It looks like Congress could therefore extend/mess with the deadline further if desired, but that it should actually have to do that given we're past the deadline in the ERA proposal.

This does imply state representation could rescind approval, at least in a de-facto fashion, by refusing to extend the timeline.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Again, if it's silent on the issue than it's silent. We have precedent even if it's not perfect. That doesn't make it disingenuous.

You're making stuff up as you go, claiming I'm doing it and now you're saying I'm arguing in bad faith. More projection?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Again, if it's silent on the issue than it's silent. We have precedent even if it's not perfect. That doesn't make it disingenuous.

You're making stuff up as you go, claiming I'm doing it and now you're saying I'm arguing in bad faith. More projection?

Per what I've read the deadline was in the proposal for ERA and was not in the proposal for the 27th amendment. Do you deny this?

 

[Patine]

I do know a few actually. A friend and a few in extended family. No constitutional law specialists though.



I'm not only talking about the US standard. I'm also talking about a standard of self-consistency in argumentation of how something "should" work or happen.



The 27th amendment is a disingenuous example to this topic, because it didn't have a deadline in either its proposed language or what was ratified. Reading more carefully, ERA has a deadline as part of the proposal. It looks like Congress could therefore extend/mess with the deadline further if desired, but that it should actually have to do that given we're past the deadline in the ERA proposal.

This does imply state representation could rescind approval, at least in a de-facto fashion, by refusing to extend the timeline.

If the Constitution ITSELF, when written, did not lay out this firm standard and constituency that you so demand, why would this standard and consistency magically appear now just to satisfy you, or why are we being disingenuous for pointing out that no such standard and constituency exists in that document just because you demand one?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If the Constitution ITSELF, when written, did not lay out this firm standard and constituency that you so demand, why would this standard and consistency magically appear now just to satisfy you, or why are we being disingenuous for pointing out that no such standard and constituency exists in that document just because you demand one?

The disingenuous bit is claiming we can ignore a deadline in a proposal by citing another amendment which did not have a deadline as a basis.

I'm not in the camp that the constitution is flawless, but I nevertheless reject self-inconsistency outright. This particular amendment (which still doesn't appear to do anything in practice by the way) had a deadline in its proposal. Rather than saying it doesn't count, it would make more sense to extend it.

 

[MaryKB]

If you don't think it does anything, then you shouldn't have any problem with passing it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If you don't think it does anything, then you shouldn't have any problem with passing it.

I don't, aside from the fact that if something needs to be done, passing legislation that doesn't do anything obviously won't help and has a history of creating false impressions that something useful was accomplished. Edit: this amendment's language also directly implies things like women having to be eligible to be drafted, so there's a potential harm.

"We constitutionally made this thing that's widely illegal already but poorly enforced still illegal" isn't very convincing. If you want to actually see change it's probably better to drop ERA as it's written and start with some more specific legal controls. Wasn't one of the criticisms of the constitution earlier in this thread already the amount of things that have to be decided/operated on de-facto w/o its guidance in practice?

I'm also not convinced entirely what in particular needs to be accomplished, but if "nothing" is the current aiming point why bother?

 

[Patine]

The disingenuous bit is claiming we can ignore a deadline in a proposal by citing another amendment which did not have a deadline as a basis.

I'm not in the camp that the constitution is flawless, but I nevertheless reject self-inconsistency outright. This particular amendment (which still doesn't appear to do anything in practice by the way) had a deadline in its proposal. Rather than saying it doesn't count, it would make more sense to extend it.

But the rule your quoting is not actually strongly backed - or even really backed at all - in the Constitution, and the deadlines, or lack thereof, and how long they are, and when they're applied, are just fiat of the writers of said amendments, usually for one ulterior motive or another, as it is. This is obvious to see.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But the rule your quoting is not actually strongly backed - or even really backed at all - in the Constitution, and the deadlines, or lack thereof, and how long they are, and when they're applied, are just fiat of the writers of said amendments, usually for one ulterior motive or another, as it is. This is obvious to see.

Regardless of motive, it was put there when it was not in other amendment proposals. It's part of the proposal.

The constitution itself doesn't say anything on whether adding/not adding deadlines is constitutional, to my knowledge. However, if we're going to ignore part of a proposal and not other parts of a proposal there still should be a reason for doing that separates this part from the others.

 

[Farm Boy]

If you don't think it does anything, then you shouldn't have any problem with passing it.

How laws get passed matters independently of their specific content.

 

[Patine]

How laws get passed matters independently of their specific content.

And the competency of those responsible for passing the laws, and whether they're more beholden to their actual constituents, to sheepishly towing party lines regardless of common good, or more in the pockets of powerful Plutocractic "donors" and "lobbyists," is another independent issue for all such matters as well, but a much stickier one to sort out. Basically, whom are the "public servants" servants of, and for whose "good."

 

[Farm Boy]

Competency is one of those tricky words which shouldn't be, but often is subsumed by various ways of being beheld.

 

[Patine]

Competency is one of those tricky words which shouldn't be, but often is subsumed by various ways of being beheld.

Of course, "Citizen's United," effectively legalized bribery of elected officials or candidates for such office and legitimatized the thorough state of corruption in the U.S. - and was an act of treason and sedition by the Justices that supported it against their own nation.