The Equal rights Amendment is it in the Constitution ?

[Greed and Death]

So the State of Virginia has ratified the equal rights amendment, reaching the number needed to ratify the Amendment.

Provided you ignore the deadline originally set by congress. (March 22, 1979)
Provided you count the state that quantified ratification based on meeting the deadline(South Dakota).
Provided you ignore the states that rescinded ratification (Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, and Kentucky).

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... t-n1126606

A lawsuit has been filed. The argument against the deadline is that it was not put in the text of the amendment but in the header. This seems extremely formalist. The other part of the argument is that states cannot rescind ratification once they have ratified an amendment.


so NSG is the ERA part of the Constitution or is the lawsuit just pissing in the wind ?

Also text of the ERA.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

"ARTICLE —

"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

"Sec. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

"Sec. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."

[Farnhamia]

That was our legal correspondent, Greed and Death. Thanks, G&D. Now back to the studio.

What are to discuss? Hmmm?

[Greed and Death]

That was our legal correspondent, Greed and Death. Thanks, G&D. Now back to the studio.

What are to discuss? Hmmm?

Is the ERA now part of the Constitution. These are honestly some really interesting legal questions.

[Cannot think of a name]

I tried to figure this out when the last state to ratify it did and it gave me a headache and I quit.

[Albrenia]

So what does this Amendment say, exactly?

[Greed and Death]

So what does this Amendment say, exactly?

Great question.

Here is the text.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

"ARTICLE —

"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

"Sec. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

"Sec. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."

I will add it to the OP as well.

[Tinhampton]

I tried to figure this out when the last state to ratify it did and it gave me a headache and I quit.

Virginia has ratified in the past few weeks; I don't believe there were any "proper" ratifications more recently than four-and-a-bit decades ago. In any case, the DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel says that only the passage of ERA II in Congress can lead to ERA ratification - and it is deeply unlikely that (m)any Congressional Republicans would support it as fervently as they did in 1972.

[Albrenia]

Huh. The wording of the Amendment doesn't seem that bad to me, although I'm not a lawyer so there's probably a few thousand loopholes which one could make out of it which I'm not aware of.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I keep reading this as the Equatorial rights amendment. Jesus, I need to go to sleep. Sorry.

[Greed and Death]

Huh. The wording of the Amendment doesn't seem that bad to me, although I'm not a lawyer so there's probably a few thousand loopholes which one could make out of it which I'm not aware of.

Well the arguments against its passage is that it would force both men and women to be drafted, prevent governments from having larger restrooms for women, end alimony for women who were home makers, and by and large otherwise end protections for women who choose traditional gender roles.

[Albrenia]

Huh. The wording of the Amendment doesn't seem that bad to me, although I'm not a lawyer so there's probably a few thousand loopholes which one could make out of it which I'm not aware of.

Well the arguments against its passage is that it would force both men and women to be drafted, prevent governments from having larger restrooms for women, end alimony for women who were home makers, and by and large otherwise end protections for women who choose traditional gender roles.

Couldn't one extend those protections to men who are home makers as well to also solve that problem?

In the case of restrooms, that is one point concede, unless they just decide to make it one giant unisex bathroom but that could have other side effects.

[Greed and Death]

Well the arguments against its passage is that it would force both men and women to be drafted, prevent governments from having larger restrooms for women, end alimony for women who were home makers, and by and large otherwise end protections for women who choose traditional gender roles.

Couldn't one extend those protections to men who are home makers as well to also solve that problem?

In the case of restrooms, that is one point concede, unless they just decide to make it one giant unisex bathroom but that could have other side effects.

There was also an argument that this would get rid of gendered restrooms.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Couldn't one extend those protections to men who are home makers as well to also solve that problem?

In the case of restrooms, that is one point concede, unless they just decide to make it one giant unisex bathroom but that could have other side effects.

There was also an argument that this would get rid of gendered restrooms.

I don't see how, unless someone proves that one set of bathrooms are always better than the other. Still, I'm neutral on this amendment currently.

[Telconi]

There was also an argument that this would get rid of gendered restrooms.

I don't see how, unless someone proves that one set of bathrooms are always better than the other. Still, I'm neutral on this amendment currently.

I seem to recall "Seperate but equal" as a concept that government had problem working...

[Telconi]

Well the arguments against its passage is that it would force both men and women to be drafted, prevent governments from having larger restrooms for women, end alimony for women who were home makers, and by and large otherwise end protections for women who choose traditional gender roles.

Couldn't one extend those protections to men who are home makers as well to also solve that problem?

In the case of restrooms, that is one point concede, unless they just decide to make it one giant unisex bathroom but that could have other side effects.

Allow house-husbands to receive alimony from working wives in the event of divorce.

I'm curious how this could effect reproductive rights. For example here in California, lower income women are provided with OB-GYN visits, and hormonal birth control free of charge. How do you extend equal entitlements of this fashion to men? Would this force the ending of these programs? What about entitlements for leave from work for pregnancy? Would we begin providing men paternity leave equal to expectant mother's leave?

[Albrenia]

Couldn't one extend those protections to men who are home makers as well to also solve that problem?

In the case of restrooms, that is one point concede, unless they just decide to make it one giant unisex bathroom but that could have other side effects.

Allow house-husbands to receive alimony from working wives in the event of divorce.

I'm curious how this could effect reproductive rights. For example here in California, lower income women are provided with OB-GYN visits, and hormonal birth control free of charge. How do you extend equal entitlements of this fashion to men? Would this force the ending of these programs? What about entitlements for leave from work for pregnancy? Would we begin providing men paternity leave equal to expectant mother's leave?

I'm a fan of people getting Paternity leave in the case of single fathers, or in the case of couples the partners choosing one among themselves to receive leave while the other works. The health questions are rather too complex for me to have any idea what to do besides extending birth control measures to men as available.

[Telconi]

Allow house-husbands to receive alimony from working wives in the event of divorce.

I'm curious how this could effect reproductive rights. For example here in California, lower income women are provided with OB-GYN visits, and hormonal birth control free of charge. How do you extend equal entitlements of this fashion to men? Would this force the ending of these programs? What about entitlements for leave from work for pregnancy? Would we begin providing men paternity leave equal to expectant mother's leave?

I'm a fan of people getting Paternity leave in the case of single fathers, or in the case of couples the partners choosing one among themselves to receive leave while the other works. The health questions are rather too complex for me to have any idea what to do besides extending birth control measures to men as available.

I mean, permitting them to choose a parent to take time off for the child's birth is quite the Sophie's choice. One of these parents is actually physically inhibited from working...

[Albrenia]

I'm a fan of people getting Paternity leave in the case of single fathers, or in the case of couples the partners choosing one among themselves to receive leave while the other works. The health questions are rather too complex for me to have any idea what to do besides extending birth control measures to men as available.

I mean, permitting them to choose a parent to take time off for the child's birth is quite the Sophie's choice. One of these parents is actually physically inhibited from working...

Fair point. There's not much I can think of to remedy that though, at least until the invention of whatever that thing is that Norman Reedus carries that baby around in is.

[Telconi]

I mean, permitting them to choose a parent to take time off for the child's birth is quite the Sophie's choice. One of these parents is actually physically inhibited from working...

Fair point. There's not much I can think of to remedy that though, at least until the invention of whatever that thing is that Norman Reedus carries that baby around in is.

I think the only way to achieve equal treatment would be to give both parents paid time off.

[Albrenia]

Fair point. There's not much I can think of to remedy that though, at least until the invention of whatever that thing is that Norman Reedus carries that baby around in is.

I think the only way to achieve equal treatment would be to give both parents paid time off.

That sounds fair enough too.

[Samadhi]

Is slave document bigger now?

I have a feeling this is going to require a lot of antiquated law terminology.

[Vassenor]

Fair point. There's not much I can think of to remedy that though, at least until the invention of whatever that thing is that Norman Reedus carries that baby around in is.

I think the only way to achieve equal treatment would be to give both parents paid time off.

I thought we were already in agreement on that and were just trying to figure out the practicalities.

[Ethel mermania]

Virginia, ever since becoming democratic is passing stupid laws.

Era isnt necessary, federal law
already prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.

But no it doesnt count as passage did not meet the requirements of the amendment.

[Greed and Death]

Virginia, ever since becoming democratic is passing stupid laws.

Era isnt necessary, federal law
already prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.

But no it doesnt count as passage did not meet the requirements of the amendment.

Right now sex discrimination is based on the intermediate scrutiny standard. The ERA using the same wording as the 14th would arguably make sex discrimination based on strict scrutiny.

[Ethel mermania]

Virginia, ever since becoming democratic is passing stupid laws.

Era isnt necessary, federal law
already prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.

But no it doesnt count as passage did not meet the requirements of the amendment.

Right now sex discrimination is based on the intermediate scrutiny standard. The ERA using the same wording as the 14th would arguably make sex discrimination based on strict scrutiny.

Honestly, excepting title 9 type stuff, I think sex discrimination laws are about where they need be.

I do believe orientation should be protected as well, but that's a different conversation.