Should the Equal Rights Amendment Be Passed?

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?
"Similar nonsense"

It's not even clear the deadline written in the preamble of the ERA is constitutional itself. Morever, the text of the amendment itself does not contain a limit. The limit I believe is in the preamble which is not what gets put in the Constitution. I.E. it is meaningless until tested by the courts. You are attempting to be an armchair judicial activist while projecting that same attitude and approach on everyone else.
 
I'm no fan of Citizen's United, but gotta admit, it is at least better than active avocation that broad political rivals have committed capital offense. ;)
 
I'm no fan of Citizen's United, but gotta admit, it is at least better than active avocation that broad political rivals have committed capital offense. ;)

Political rivals? I make no such assertation for partisan jockeying, and do not restrict my assertations of political leaders and lawmakers in the U.S. (and other First World Nations) committing high crimes of betrayal against the very nations and people they swear oaths to serve (who are incredibly and surprisingly many - unacceptably so, in fact) on partisan or ideological divide, but on their very actions and words, and will gladly point out such crimes that SHOULD be indicted and punished, regardless of political label.
 
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

I don't think the other boys and girls on the farm understand @Farm Boy's way of rabbitn' on anymore. Too much booklearnin' in all the wrong ways! :P
 
The only way to get a straight answer out of Farm Boy. You have to look at every reply in a mirror, while hanging upside down from the ceiling. After a while you will either see the truth or pass out and have a vision. Either way the result is pretty much the same.
Spoiler :

Yes, I did steal that from Babylon 5.....
 
It'd be amazing if any of us pulled it out of our sisters long enough to read a book in the first place I suppose.
 
It'd be amazing if any of us pulled it out of our sisters long enough to read a book in the first place I suppose.

The last time my sister lent me a book series it was actually pretty good. Turns out most of her recommendations are.
 
50 Shades?
 
Wasn't certain how to manage the segue. Figured, why not bondage?
 
It means Citizens United is better than saying all your political opponents deserve to die.

That's the LABEL the lobby group USED. In truth, the honest name would have been "Corrupt Plutocrats United to Screw Over the Common Citizens."
 
Well the ERA was called out by multiple debaters. Does anyone think it'll become a central plank for the Democratic nominee?
 
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?

We can do both. I would tend to agree that the ERA alone is inadequate to solve the problem, but it's still an obvious thing that needs to be done.

I can think of literally no rational reason whatsoever for the ERA to not get passed. The best you can say is "it won't be enough", which is true but it's still better than nothing. And yes there are already anti-discrimination laws but nothing in the constitution that explicitly states no discrimination based on sex. There are other laws, but those laws are not amendments/part of the constitution. Thus, it's much easier to roll them back, as the Trump administration has already done for many of them. Thus, you couldn't possibly say the ERA would have no tangible long-term impact.
 
Virginia passed the ERA last night, making it the 38th state to do so. The amendment has now passed the 3/4 threshold to be enshrined in the constitution. However, it is being challenged in the courts so it is unknown if it will pass. I guess we'll get to find out how far Trump's takeover of the judiciary has advanced.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/15/us/era-virginia-vote.html

I wished I had written about this in the prediction thread
 
I guess we'll get to find out how far Trump's takeover of the judiciary has advanced.
Considering the current makeup, I give it almost 0% chance of passing.
 
Back
Top Bottom