The Equal rights Amendment is it in the Constitution ?

[Telconi]

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.

Judging by the number of states that give paid parental leave to both parents, nobody is in agreement on this.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's a largely meaningless amendment due to the extreme disagreements over what constitutes equality. Explicit formal unequal treatment is no longer a norm. Both feminist misandry and "difference feminism"(traditionalism) would be allowable under the amendment if a court accepted their justifications.

So too would red pill philosophy or any manner of rationalization thanks to "Positive discrimination" as an acceptable practice.

MRM ideas would also be allowable.

The amendment essentially just provokes endless lawsuits and determines that what is ultimately a political debate be settled by courts, which is not a very productive thing.

It could be more radical if it maintained that positive discrimination under the law was also illegal.

[US-SSR]

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.

The DoJ OLC doesn't get to say what the law is. The courts do. Three state attorneys general have filed suit in federal court to force the Archivist of the United States to enter ratification of the ERA, which would make it part of the Constitution. Should they prevail, the DoJ OLC can go pound sand.

[Militant Costco]

It's a largely meaningless amendment due to the extreme disagreements over what constitutes equality. Explicit formal unequal treatment is no longer a norm. Both feminist misandry and "difference feminism"(traditionalism) would be allowable under the amendment if a court accepted their justifications.

So too would red pill philosophy or any manner of rationalization thanks to "Positive discrimination" as an acceptable practice.

MRM ideas would also be allowable.

The amendment essentially just provokes endless lawsuits and determines that what is ultimately a political debate be settled by courts, which is not a very productive thing.

It could be more radical if it maintained that positive discrimination under the law was also illegal.

That could be the strategy though. Congress has gotten even more stagnant since the ERA was first proposed and the Supreme Court has been taking the slack in terms civil rights actions. Even if SCOTUS doesn't wanna hear anything about it, ultimately if you throw enough shit at them and divide the nation's courts over it, SCOTUS will have to intervene, and their word is arguably more powerful than anyone else in the U.S.

[Tahar Joblis]

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."

Frankly, I think that the idea that states can't rescind ratification is absurd. Whether or not the act of congress placing a time limit on the amendment is effective or not... I think that's something that's worth hashing out.

But inability to rescind ratifications of amendments that could be pending for a long time ... if public opinion shifts in different times in different states in different directions, you could get an amendment that most of the country disapproved of for all of its ratification period.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Ratify it and make it the 28th amendment to the constitution, let’s do this folks!

[LiberNovusAmericae]

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...

When it comes to race, yes.

[Betoni]

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.

Is there actually a right under the law that determines the exact size of bathrooms in government buildings?

[Antityranicals]

I'm afraid that the only way that the ERA will become part of the constitution is if the House of Representatives and the Senate pass it... again, the president signs it... again, and if 38 states ratify it after that, with none retracting their ratification before the full 38 should ratify. Otherwise, the ERA, for better or for worse, is dead.

[Antityranicals]

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.

Is there actually a right under the law that determines the exact size of bathrooms in government buildings?

No, but generally, women's restrooms are larger than men's restrooms, for good reason, and technically, the ERA would force the government to give equal treatment, and therefore equal space, to both genders. Technically, this could be construed to force the government to put urinals in government women's restrooms... or to take them out of men's restrooms.

[Galloism]

How brave of Viriginia to pass a redundant law.

Discrimination on the basis of sex is already illegal federally.

I mean, sort of, in some contexts, but generally speaking it isn’t true.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

How brave of Viriginia to pass a redundant law.

Discrimination on the basis of sex is already illegal federally.

The Fourteenth amendment isn’t good enough, unless sex and gender are explicitely mentioned in the constitution then they apparently have no rights, even as United States citizens, according to many originalists.

[Betoni]

Is there actually a right under the law that determines the exact size of bathrooms in government buildings?

No, but generally, women's restrooms are larger than men's restrooms, for good reason, and technically, the ERA would force the government to give equal treatment, and therefore equal space, to both genders. Technically, this could be construed to force the government to put urinals in government women's restrooms... or to take them out of men's restrooms.

Sounds dumb, so it must be true. I can't personally see how equal rights under the law has anything to do with toilets though.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

I'm afraid that the only way that the ERA will become part of the constitution is if the House of Representatives and the Senate pass it... again, the president signs it... again, and if 38 states ratify it after that, with none retracting their ratification before the full 38 should ratify. Otherwise, the ERA, for better or for worse, is dead.

Too bad for anti-constitutionalists like yourself, all that has now already happened.

[Aclion]

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.

Counterintuitively, this actually makes the wage gap effect of leave more pronounced, since unlike a mother father is not carrying a child and is free to use paternal leave time on professional development, which he can then leverage to higher income when he returns to the workforce.

[Telconi]

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

Counterintuitively, this actually makes the wage gap effect of leave more pronounced, since unlike a mother father is not carrying a child and is free to use paternal leave time on professional development, which he can then leverage to higher income when he returns to the workforce.

A woman could spend just as much time on professional development if the father shared the workload at home.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

All amendments should have a deadline and the deadline should be binding. Sorry ERA.

[Aclion]

Counterintuitively, this actually makes the wage gap effect of leave more pronounced, since unlike a mother father is not carrying a child and is free to use paternal leave time on professional development, which he can then leverage to higher income when he returns to the workforce.

A woman could spend just as much time on professional development if the father shared the workload at home.

That's true regardless of leave. The issue is that the father cannot take on the biggest part of the workload, the pregnancy.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Paternal leave equal to maternal leave is necessary, or else there is a disincentive to hire/promote women.

[Tahar Joblis]

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.

"This will end special protections for women" was the argument that defeated the original ERA in Congress the 1920s. Once an ERA finally got through Congress in the 1970s, "this will end special protections for women" was the argument that defeated it in the 1970s.

It's something of a theme, and if you go digging, there are a lot of special protections for women in law & also in de facto implementations of policy.

[The Black Forrest]

Paternal leave equal to maternal leave is necessary, or else there is a disincentive to hire/promote women.

It’s becoming more common. My old company just allowed it. As the founder said; it was something of a different era and it never occurred to us for the need. Times change and so shall we.

I have an interview with a new company and they have it as well.....

[Ethel mermania]

Paternal leave equal to maternal leave is necessary, or else there is a disincentive to hire/promote women.

It’s becoming more common. My old company just allowed it. As the founder said; it was something of a different era and it never occurred to us for the need. Times change and so shall we.

I have an interview with a new company and they have it as well.....

Both companies I worked for at the time gave the same parental leave to both parents, 4 weeks

[The Black Forrest]

Counterintuitively, this actually makes the wage gap effect of leave more pronounced, since unlike a mother father is not carrying a child and is free to use paternal leave time on professional development, which he can then leverage to higher income when he returns to the workforce.

A woman could spend just as much time on professional development if the father shared the workload at home.

We can agree on something.

Mrs. Bumi did more of the housework when she was unemployed. Now that she is the sole provider; I do more of the housework.

She actually makes me leave the house so I can remember “textbook” questions for interviews.

Equality can be a good thing when the pair is right for each other.

[The Emerald Legion]

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.

The DoJ OLC doesn't get to say what the law is. The courts do. Three state attorneys general have filed suit in federal court to force the Archivist of the United States to enter ratification of the ERA, which would make it part of the Constitution. Should they prevail, the DoJ OLC can go pound sand.

And they're going to lose because they don't have a leg to stand on. Do you honestly think that the current supreme court is going to approve that? The precedent of allowing the post-ratification alteration of a proposed amendment alone is bad. Not to mention allowing the precedent of letting amendments just float off in the ether for decades until piece by piece they get ratified.

How brave of Viriginia to pass a redundant law.

Discrimination on the basis of sex is already illegal federally.

The Fourteenth amendment isn’t good enough, unless sex and gender are explicitely mentioned in the constitution then they apparently have no rights, even as United States citizens, according to many originalists.

That's a stupid argument and they should feel bad for holding it.

I'm afraid that the only way that the ERA will become part of the constitution is if the House of Representatives and the Senate pass it... again, the president signs it... again, and if 38 states ratify it after that, with none retracting their ratification before the full 38 should ratify. Otherwise, the ERA, for better or for worse, is dead.

Too bad for anti-constitutionalists like yourself, all that has now already happened.

No it hasn't. The ERA is dead and gone and Virginia is trying to perform legislative Necromancy. You can't just CHANGE an a proposed amendment midway through Ratification. 'Oh hey, we got an amendment to the 37 state ratification mark. Quick let's change the text to make it say that every state but Kentucky has no rights.'

[Purgatio]

The more substantive question, rather than debating the formalities of whether the original deadline was a necessary precondition for effective ratification or a non-binding element in the header (which isn't a very interesting debate) is what difference the ERA would actually make, in practice, to the US's constitutional jurisprudence if it were ever to meet the conditions needed to be an effective amendment to the Constitution. Given that the US already has the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is binding against the States as it stands, the ratification of the ERA would really only have one of three effects:

1) It would prevent future evolution of constitutional case law erasing the concept that sex is a protected or suspect classification. Right now, the concept that sex is a suspect classification such that sex-differentiated laws attract heightened or intermediate scrutiny is a product entirely of case law, in Reed v. Reed and Craig v. Boren specifically. In theory, this means a future SCOTUS could overturn those judgments and interpret the Equal Protection Clause as not regarding sex as a suspect classification - this would have to overcome the hurdle of stare decisis as recognised in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In theory, however, it is still possible, whereas if the ERA were ever to become part of the US Constitution, this would be impossible because the ERA's explicit wording references sex.

2) It could, potentially, upgrade 'sex' to become a suspect classification that attracts strict scrutiny (like race), rather than intermediate scrutiny at present. This will depend a lot on the way the ERA is interpreted by SCOTUS. A general canon of legal construction is ut res magis valeat quam pereat, or the principle of effectiveness - courts generally assume that when lawmakers promulgate a law, that law is intended to achieve something. If the ERA ever satisfies the conditions to become an effective constitutional amendment, it would be sensible for SCOTUS to interpret the ERA in a way that gives it actual effect - in other words, to effectuate a change in the present constitutional legal order of the US. The most obvious way to achieve this is to interpret the ERA as meaning sex is a suspect classification that attracts strict scrutiny, rather than intermediate scrutiny as it does at present. This would mean that laws that make distinctions based on sex would be less likely to pass constitutional muster than they do at present. This would require some speculation as to whether past cases would have resulted in different outcomes if sex attracted strict scrutiny - would the law in Nguyen v. INS have been invalidated if sex attracted strict rather than intermediate scrutiny? It's hard to say.

3) Nothing. This seems like the most likely outcome, honestly. Even if the ERA were held to be legally-effective because SCOTUS regards the deadline for minimum ratification as not a strict requirement (because its in the header or whatever), honestly nothing would change. All the Equal Protection case law regarding sex, like Craig v. Boren and Sessions v. Morales-Santana, would simply be transposed and applied to the ERA itself. All the sex-based Equal Protection case law would evolve to become ERA case law. You would probably see SCOTUS employ reasoning to justify this 'preserve the status quo' way of interpreting and applying the ERA that is somewhat analogous to how SCOTUS interpreted the Fifth Amendment in Bolling v. Sharpe co-extensively with the Fourteenth Amendment through a reverse incorporation doctrine, but a prospective rather than retrospective version of that reasoning (i.e., that the ratification of the ERA was intended to incorporate sex-based case law under the Equal Protection Clause as a correct doctrinal interpretation of what the ERA was and is intended by the ratifiers to achieve).

So, does it matter in the end whether the ERA is in the Constitution? Honestly, no.