Reviving the US Equal Rights Amendment

[Jarhyn]

What it would do is pose a serious problem to gender-specific legislation, such as VAWA.

Or, it would do no such thing, except for to make the legislation interperable as expressly applying equally to everyone, and thus alleviate a great deal of the whining certain people do about the "biases" in the bill.

 

[Jarhyn]

Or, it would do no such thing, except for to make the legislation interperable as expressly applying equally to everyone, and thus alleviate a great deal of the whining certain people do about the "biases" in the bill.

The VAWA is clearly biased against men. Even the very name is sexist and exclusionary.

And that ERA that you keep railing against would have the effect of making it not be, as the amendment would make it directly interperable as gender non-specific

 

[Tom Sawyer]

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?17556-Ladies-Night-Derail-From-ERA-Thread

 

[lpetrich]

Will Congress Ever Ratify the Equal Rights Amendment? - The Atlantic

After describing how Virginia's legislature rejected the ERA the first time around, the article continued with "On January 15, 2019, the Virginia Senate voted to approve the ERA. The resolution now goes back to the House that rejected it 40 years ago."

But advocates also formulated a new path to ratification, which they dubbed the “three-state strategy.” It is this: (1) Win ratification in three of the 15 states that have not yet ratified the amendment—thus bringing the total number of ratifications to 38, and then (2) Win passage of a congressional resolution retroactively extending the deadline.

Step one is nearly complete; the Nevada legislature approved the amendment in 2017, and Illinois did so in 2018. If Virginia approves it this time, the three-state strategists will ask Congress to pass a statute proclaiming that the measure has been approved by 38 states.

Then the real fight will start.

The House will likely approve it, but Senator Mitch McConnell will likely try to block it, I think. He wouldn't want to let the lib-buh-ruhls have a victory, I'm sure.

The article then got into the history of the 27th Amendment, "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened." It was introduced in 1789, and it was ratified by a grand total of 6 states out of the necessary 10 states of back then.

Flash forward to 1982, when a University of Texas undergraduate named Gregory Watson wrote a term paper suggesting that citizens could still push the pay amendment to ratification. His instructor gave him a C, but Watson devoted himself to the project for the next decade, until on May 9, 1992, Michigan became the 39th state to sign on.

Final ratification took place amid a national outcry against Congress after a (by today’s standards) very mild scandal involving generous check-cashing privileges at a bank for members of Congress. Public opinion was such that no member had the nerve to obstruct it. So on May 18, 1992, the archivist of the United States certified the amendment as part of the Constitution, and both chambers later affirmed his decision.

Time limits first appeared in the 20th century. The 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd Amendments were all time-limited, while the 16th, 17th, 19th, and 23rd ones were not. The ERA itself includes no time limit, but the resolution language does, as did 3 other amendments. After the adoption of the 27th Amendment, ERA supporters decided that they might do a similar job in resurrecting that amendment.

 

[lpetrich]

Virginia election results are a big deal for the Equal Rights Amendment - Vox

The Equal Rights Amendment is closer than it’s ever been to becoming a reality after Democrats took control of both the House and Senate in Virginia on Tuesday. But even if the state ratifies the ERA, there’s still a looming legal debate over whether it can actually be enshrined in the United States Constitution.

...
Virginia’s ratification doesn’t directly translate to the ERA finally making it into the Constitution — it’s decades past the deadline Congress set for that to happen. The ERA’s supporters say there’s a legal workaround, so we may soon find out whether it will work.

So it's one more step ahead.

 

[Terrell]

I suspect that (average) men would actually benefit from this amendment, likely more than women, since it would be about the laws. VAWA would be an easy first target if the amendment is ratified & enforced in the manner it's worded in the OP. Legal protection against genital mutilation could be extended to include boys. Selective service would be another target. Would love to see Selective Service fall & see prison time for anyone who would mutilate the genitals of any child, regardless of sex. Her clitoris her choice; his foreskin his choice. Holding both sexes to the same standards in domestic law sounds pretty good to me.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I suspect that (average) men would actually benefit from this amendment, likely more than women, since it would be about the laws. VAWA would be an easy first target if the amendment is ratified & enforced in the manner it's worded in the OP. Legal protection against genital mutilation could be extended to include boys. Selective service would be another target. Would love to see Selective Service fall & see prison time for anyone who would mutilate the genitals of any child, regardless of sex. Her clitoris her choice; his foreskin his choice. Holding both sexes to the same standards in domestic law sounds pretty good to me.

Agreed. And this is something I have seen numerous MRAs push for and seen many feminists oppose them on. If Feminists really do now want equal rights across the board, then that's fantastic.

 

[lpetrich]

ERA: Virginia General Assembly votes to ratify Equal Rights Amendment - The Washington Post

• House of Delegates: 59-41, all D's, 3 R's
• Senate: 28-12, all D's, 7 R's

‘At last, at last’: Women who fought for ERA for decades exult at Virginia vote - The Washington Post

Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.), the lead House sponsor of the ERA in Congress who is trying to remove the ratification deadline, said in a statement that the Virginia vote Wednesday was “truly exhilarating.”

“When I look at the issues that policymakers have debated for many years, the reasons why we need the ERA become even more apparent,” her statement said. “A constitutional amendment is forever. It cannot be repealed, rolled back or expire. It is not subject to the whims of who controls Congress, a statehouse, or the White House.”

I wouldn't bet on it being forever. Undoing its passing will be difficult, but still feasible. It has happened with the Prohibition amendment.

Anne Schlafly Cori, president of the Eagle Forum and daughter of renowned anti-ERA activist Phyllis Schlafly, denied the importance of Virginia’s vote.

“If it’s illegal, there’s no impact,” she said. “Time has not made [the ERA] any better. The ERA never had anything to do with women. . . . It’s been so long since we’ve had a public conversation about [the ERA] that people say yes, they’re for it. But the more they learn about it, the less they like it.”

Like mother, like daughter.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is not settled and is likely headed to the court. Is there a time limit on these things? Can states unratify ratification if it hasn't become an amendment yet?

 

[lpetrich]

The Equal Rights Amendment and the drive for ratification, explained - Vox

Foy says the resurgence of interest stems from a combination of factors like the Women’s March, the Me Too movement, and the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court even after he was publicly accused of sexual assault. “Women are now understanding that none of our fundamental rights are really guaranteed,” she said.

...
Ratification in Virginia, however, is far from the end of the fight over the ERA. Congress set a deadline of 1982 for states to ratify the amendment, meaning Virginia’s decision comes almost 40 years too late.

Democrats in Congress are working to remove this obstacle. In November, the House Judiciary Committee passed a resolution to eliminate the deadline, and it’s expected to pass the full House. But such legislation will have a harder time in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Meanwhile, some states are actively fighting the amendment. Last year, Louisiana, Alabama, and South Dakota filed a lawsuit in an effort to force the federal government to let the 1982 deadline stand. And President Trump’s Justice Department issued guidance earlier this month stating that Congress does not have the power to change the deadline. Whatever happens next, a court battle over the amendment is all but inevitable.

So it's not yet the end.

 

[Trausti]

Instead of reviving a stale proposed amendment which, by its own terms, has expired, why not propose a new amendment with clear and concise language as to its purpose?

 

[lpetrich]

House Votes To Push Deadline On Equal Rights Amendment : NPR

The proposed amendment says simply, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex," and it has had a renaissance in recent years, with three states ratifying it since 2017.

However, the bill may well be stymied after this vote.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said earlier this month that he's "personally not a supporter" of the amendment, and the Trump administration's Office of Legal Counsel has said that it considers the ERA "expired."

Since all the Senate Republicans seem to have delegated their voting to MMC, it's stuck. There are also questions about how valid this action is.

Republicans argued against the bill, saying that the amendment is unconstitutional, but they also particularly stressed the issue of abortion in their arguments.

They seem rather desperate.

This is the three-state strategy, ratifying the ERA in 3 more states and then tweaking the amendment in Congress. The state part is done, in Illinois, Nevada, and Virginia, and the Congress part is partially done.

An alternative is starting from scratch, introducing a new ERA, but that would be time-consuming. Rep. Carolyn Maloney has repeatedly done that, without much success.

H.J.Res.79 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Final Vote Results for Roll Call 70 - the vote on HJRes 79
All 227 Democrats present voted for it. Of the 187 Republicans present, 5 voted for it. The lone Independent voted against it.
It passes 232 - 183

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This isn't getting onto the Constitution. It has been too long and will likely drag out into the Supreme Court if it manages past Congress.

 

[Jarhyn]

House Votes To Push Deadline On Equal Rights Amendment : NPR

The proposed amendment says simply, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex," and it has had a renaissance in recent years, with three states ratifying it since 2017.

However, the bill may well be stymied after this vote.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said earlier this month that he's "personally not a supporter" of the amendment, and the Trump administration's Office of Legal Counsel has said that it considers the ERA "expired."

Since all the Senate Republicans seem to have delegated their voting to MMC, it's stuck. There are also questions about how valid this action is.

Republicans argued against the bill, saying that the amendment is unconstitutional, but they also particularly stressed the issue of abortion in their arguments.

They seem rather desperate.

This is the three-state strategy, ratifying the ERA in 3 more states and then tweaking the amendment in Congress. The state part is done, in Illinois, Nevada, and Virginia, and the Congress part is partially done.

An alternative is starting from scratch, introducing a new ERA, but that would be time-consuming. Rep. Carolyn Maloney has repeatedly done that, without much success.

H.J.Res.79 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Final Vote Results for Roll Call 70 - the vote on HJRes 79
All 227 Democrats present voted for it. Of the 187 Republicans present, 5 voted for it. The lone Independent voted against it.
It passes 232 - 183

The real question is how an amendment to the Constitution can ever be anything but constitutional. Or for that matter how constitutionality factors into it at all. An amendment amends the Constitution. After passage, it is automatically constitutional. Before passage, the only constitutional consideration is the process, not the content.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

House Votes To Push Deadline On Equal Rights Amendment : NPR

Since all the Senate Republicans seem to have delegated their voting to MMC, it's stuck. There are also questions about how valid this action is.


They seem rather desperate.

This is the three-state strategy, ratifying the ERA in 3 more states and then tweaking the amendment in Congress. The state part is done, in Illinois, Nevada, and Virginia, and the Congress part is partially done.

An alternative is starting from scratch, introducing a new ERA, but that would be time-consuming. Rep. Carolyn Maloney has repeatedly done that, without much success.

H.J.Res.79 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Final Vote Results for Roll Call 70 - the vote on HJRes 79
All 227 Democrats present voted for it. Of the 187 Republicans present, 5 voted for it. The lone Independent voted against it.
It passes 232 - 183

The real question is how an amendment to the Constitution can ever be anything but constitutional. Or for that matter how constitutionality factors into it at all. An amendment amends the Constitution. After passage, it is automatically constitutional. Before passage, the only constitutional consideration is the process, not the content.

There is the amendment process itself that is part of the Constitution.

 

[Rhea]

Moved

 

[lpetrich]

H.J.Res.17 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Introduced on Jan 21 by Rep. Jackie Speier, D-CA-14. It now has 200 cosponsors, all Democrats except for one Republican, Rep. Tom Reed, R-NY-23. It has 195 original cosponsors, with 5 joining in on Jan 25.

 

[lpetrich]

Update:

H.J.Res.17 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
214 cosponsors, 195 original

Still only one Republican: Rep. Reed, Tom [R-NY-23]* (the * means original cosponsor)

"This joint resolution eliminates the deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. The amendment was proposed to the states in House Joint Resolution 208 of the 92nd Congress, as agreed to in the Senate on March 22, 1972. The amendment shall be part of the Constitution whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states."

The vote
Mar 17, 2021, 01:55 PM | 117th Congress, 1st Session
D: Y 218, nv 1
R: Y 4, N 204, nv 3
Ttl: Y 222, N 204, nv 4

The R's who voted for it: Curtis UR, Fitzpatrick PA, Malliotakis NY, Reed NY

Its Senate counterpart:
S.J.Res.1 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): A joint resolution removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
51 cosponsors, 1 original
All the D's
Both I's
Two R's: Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]*, Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME]

No votes on it, not even a cloture vote.

 

[lpetrich]

That was back in 2021. This year, Pressley, Cardin, Colleagues Unveil Resolution Affirming Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment - Ayanna Pressley - January 31, 2023

Today, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) and Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD), along with Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Congresswomen Madeleine Dean (PA-04), Sylvia Garcia (TX-29), Abigail Spanberger (VA-07), Cori Bush (MO 01), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA-37), and Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI), unveiled a bicameral, joint resolution to affirm the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and take a critical step toward enshrining equality for women in the United States Constitution. The lawmakers’ resolution removes the arbitrary deadline for ratification of the ERA and recognizes the amendment as a valid part of the Constitution, with the 38-state threshold needed for ratification of the ERA having been met.

H.J.Res.25 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress - Rep. Pressley, Ayanna [D-MA-7] (Introduced 01/31/2023)

This joint resolution provides that the Equal Rights Amendment, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, was ratified by three-fourths of the states and is therefore a valid constitutional amendment, regardless of any time limit that was in the original proposal.

The Equal Rights Amendment was originally proposed to the states in 1972. The original proposal included a deadline for ratification of March 22, 1979; Congress subsequently extended the deadline to June 30, 1982. Although the requisite 38 states have ratified the amendment, three of these states did so after the deadlines, and five states subsequently rescinded their ratifications. The status of the amendment has been the subject of litigation.

202 cosponsors, 133 original
The only R: Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1]

AP filed a discharge petition for this resolution:
07/18/2023 Motion to Discharge Committee filed by Ms. Pressley. Petition No: 118-6.

That's a motion to get it straight to the House floor, to bypass the House's committees.

 

[lpetrich]

S.J.Res.4 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): A joint resolution removing the deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
All D's, I's
The two R's: Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]*, Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME]

The only vote on it was a cloture vote.
The vote
On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. J. Res. 4 )
D: Y 47, N 1, nv 1
R: Y 2, N 46, nv 1
I: Y 3
Ttl: Y 51, N 47, nv 2
Why did Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer vote against cloture? He followed up with "Motion by Senator Schumer to reconsider the vote by which cloture on the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 4 was not invoked (Record Vote No. 99) entered in Senate."

The Democratic non-voter was Dianne Feinstein. I find that curious, because one might expect her to summon her strength to show up to vote for this resolution.

Senate GOP blocks Equal Rights Amendment | The Hill

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) argued throughout the week that the legislation was needed following the Supreme Court‘s ruling last summer that overturned Roe v. Wade.

“This resolution is as necessary as it is timely. America can never hope to be a land of freedom and opportunity so long as half of its population is treated like second class citizens,” Schumer said on the Senate floor ahead of the vote.

“There is no good reason — none — for this chamber, this Congress and this nation to bind itself to limitations set 50 years ago,” he continued. “If you look at the terrible things happening to women’s rights in this country, it’s clear we must act. To the horror of hundreds of millions of American people, women in America have far fewer rights today than they did a year ago.”

Schumer switched his vote to “no” in order to bring up the bill at another time.

US Equal Rights Amendment blocked again, a century after introduction | Reuters

Top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer said the ERA was more important since the Supreme Court last year overturned the national right to abortion.

"To the horror of hundreds of millions of American people, women in America have far fewer rights today than they did even a year ago," Schumer said prior to Thursday's vote.