Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Equal Rights Amendment is back

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-28-07 11:58 AM
Original message
The Equal Rights Amendment is back
http://alternet.org/blogs/peek/49860/

The Equal Rights Amendment is back

Posted by Melissa McEwan at 9:25 AM on March 28, 2007.


Oh. Mah. Gawd. Twenty-five-years after it failed to be ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures to become a Constitutional Amendment (and eighty-four years after it was first introduced in Congress), the Equal Rights Amendment -- now known as the Women's Equality Amendment -- is having a resurgence.

Yesterday, House and Senate Democrats reintroduced the measure … and vowed to bring it to a vote in both chambers by the end of the session.

…"Elections have consequences, and isn't it true those consequences are good right now?" Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) asked a mostly female crowd yesterday at a news conference, as the audience cheered. "We are turning this country around, bit by bit, to put it in a more progressive direction."

The amendment consists of 52 words and has one key line: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

I'm crying. I'm honestly sitting here crying, reading that line and thinking that it may finally make its way into the Constitution in my lifetime.

That sentence would subject legal claims of gender discrimination to the same strict scrutiny given by courts to allegations of racial discrimination.

…"I think we've made a lot of people think about this and say, 'Yes, this is the right thing to do,' " said Arkansas state Rep. Lindsley Smith (D), who sponsored the ERA and has vowed to bring it up again when the legislature reconvenes in 2009. "The question I get most frequently is 'Lindsley, I thought this already was in the Constitution.' "

Yeah, I've heard that once or twice myself. Probably because most Americans are bloody amazed that it isn't.

more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-28-07 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. That is good news!
I hope we make it this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-28-07 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. hefty kick
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eShirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-28-07 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
3. only 3 states left to go -- we can see it in our lifetime
Edited on Wed Mar-28-07 12:13 PM by eShirl
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-28-07 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I don't know about the "3 states left to go".
The ratification process timed-out. It was the only amendment in our history with a deadline for passing by the states. In other words, I think that if it passes the federal legislature the states would have to start the process over again.

If nothing else, our citizens will receive a civics lesson in constitutional amendments.

By the way, this might gain some support from the right if for no other reason than women can be drafted. Most young women think they should be draft eligible. The main argument against and how it was defeated before was draft eligibility. This should be fun - take to the streets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tamyrlin79 Donating Member (944 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-28-07 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Not the only one.
Most Amendments, since at least the 18th Amendment (though they skipped it on the 19th Amendment and picked back up on #20), have had a seven year time limit imposed on it for ratification. So, you are wrong to be cynical about this particular amendment being "the only amendment in our history with a deadline for passing by the states." This is WRONG WRONG WRONG! Look at nearly every amendment since the 18th, and it is there in black and white, some provision, like so, from the 18th Amendment:

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.


The reason is a court case (though I can't recall to cite) that arose as to whether a state could still ratify an old amendment or whether, after a certain time, that amendment had effectively expired. The Court essentially held that, since the Constitution didn't impose a time limit, that Amendments could be considered indefinitely until ratified. In response, the legislature (Congress) started including a time limit provision on all amendments, such that now the standard, accepted time limit is seven years from the date of passage. I wish they'd just pass a Time Limit Amendment setting it to seven years for all future amendments so they wouldn't have to keep pasting the same clauses into all future amendments (it is quite repetitive at this point), but that's where things stand on the issue as of now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-28-07 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I remembered discussions from the mid-70s incorrectly.
Edited on Wed Mar-28-07 01:37 PM by DURHAM D
Sorry. Will do some more research. I see that four amendments introduced between 1989 and 1924 are still pending.

On the other hand - you called me cynical and WRONG WRONG WRONG and did not address the central suggestion of my post.

GO SOMEWHERE ELSE TO SHOW OFF WHAT AN A** YOU ARE.

Goodbye
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lildreamer316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-28-07 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
4. YAY!!!!!!!!
My mother is dancing in heaven!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wellstone dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-28-07 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. I worked for passage of the ERA when I was in college
now I can work for passage with my daughter, who is in college.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
badgerpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-28-07 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
6. About. Damn. Time! n/t
:woohoo::bounce::patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-28-07 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
8. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I love our Democratic wimmin!

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-28-07 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
9. Yeah!!! Let's do it this time!
New Drive Afoot to Pass Equal Rights Amendment

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, March 28, 2007; Page A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032702357.html

snip--->

"Elections have consequences, and isn't it true those consequences are good right now?"
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) asked a mostly female crowd yesterday at a news conference,
as the audience cheered. "We are turning this country around, bit by bit, to put it in a
more progressive direction."


:bounce: :applause: :applause: :bounce:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-28-07 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
12. Do you know how many Independent and Republican
women just started thinking that voting for the Democrats isn't such a bad idea after all????

I've actually got goosebumps right now. I have waited so long for the Dems to step up to the plate for women. Bet Pelosi had something to do with this.

It's long overdue!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-28-07 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
13. Jeb Bush, 2003: The ERA is so "retro..... it's like going back and wearing bell bottoms."
This was yet another Jeb Bush assault on the women in this state.


Florida GOP divided over new push to ratify ERA

by Peter Wallsten
Miami Herald
Monday, April 7, 2003


TALLAHASSEE - As president of the Business and Professional Women's Clubs state chapter, Sue Banks says she was "dumbfounded" by the reception she received last month from a state senator when she asked him to support ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.
"That's silly," Banks recalled the senator telling her with a laugh, then adding, "You ladies are superior to us already."
Banks declined to identify the fellow Republican, saying she wanted to save him from embarrassment.

Days later, Banks, a Palm Beach Gardens business consultant, was appalled to read comments by Gov. Jeb Bush ridiculing the ERA's revival as a "retro" movement that he said is "like going back and wearing bell bottoms."
That, Banks said, was not the message she expected from leaders whose party is angling for women's votes next year, when President Bush is expected to need Florida's 27 electoral votes for reelection.
"The Republican Party is supposed to stand for individual rights and freedom," said Banks, 53. "To have a party that is wrong on the ERA and yet feels that the female vote is so critical and so important, that's talking out of both sides of our mouth."

.....

Coupled with his brother's recent decision to study the usefulness of Title IX, the federal law that requires equal opportunities in college sports for men and women, some Republicans worry that the Bush brothers' approach could hurt the president and other GOP candidates in Florida, where moderate female voters can swing elections. .....
While Bush's bluntness has made some people uncomfortable, others in his party are squirming in the face of a wedge issue that so clearly divides the party's loyal, conservative base from its growing dependence on moderate voters.
Toni Jennings, Florida's first female lieutenant governor and a former state senator who opposed the ERA in 1982, now tiptoes around the issue and refuses to take a stand.
"I'll have to do some research on it," said Jennings, who, as a likely candidate for governor in 2006, would rely in part on her appeal to female voters eager to elect a woman to high office.

.....

The Republican fault lines on the debate were clearly exposed last week, when the amendment won a surprising 6-3 victory in a GOP-led state Senate committee, with three Republicans and three Democrats voting for it.
It was the first vote in the Legislature since 1982 on the ERA, which states: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."
Advocates argue that if Florida lawmakers vote to ratify the amendment, the state could push the national movement closer to achieving the 38 states required for adding the provision to the U.S. Constitution. Thirty-five states ratified the ERA when the debate raged in the 1970s and 1980s, and some legal scholars argue that those votes remain viable if three more states can deliver. Others disagree, noting that Congress placed a seven-year deadline on the ratification process.

.....

Ratifying the ERA in Florida requires a majority vote in the state House and Senate but does not need Bush's signature. Still, the governor's remarks have made him a protagonist for a vocal opposition that consists largely of the GOP's loyal, conservative base.
State House Speaker Johnnie Byrd has joined Bush in opposing the effort, all but ensuring that the ERA will die in the Legislature this year but remain very much alive on the campaign trail next year.
Some critics’ sentiments were summed up in an e-mail from Christian Coalition Deputy Director Carolyn Kunkle to state Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Alex Villalobos, a Miami Republican who backs the ERA. Kunkle declared that the amendment would legalize same-sex marriages and require taxpayer funding for many abortions.

"ERA is a fraud," Kunkle wrote.

Other opponents – including Gov. Bush – argue that they support equality for women but believe the ERA is passé at a time that women are making advancements – a stance that some Republicans believe is a mainstream view held by many women who will continue to vote for GOP candidates.

.....





New Drive Afoot to Pass Equal Rights Amendment, Washington Post, Wednesday, March 28, 2007; A01


"Elections have consequences, and isn't it true those consequences are good right now?" Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) asked a mostly female crowd yesterday at a news conference, as the audience cheered. "We are turning this country around, bit by bit, to put it in a more progressive direction."




Today is a very good day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 02:44 AM
Response to Original message
14. Could also open things up on the gay marriage front as well.
Edited on Thu Mar-29-07 02:45 AM by DarkTirade
Since the whole Brown vs. School Board set the precedent that 'seperate but equal' is NOT equal. And in 49 out of our 50 states, men have the right to marry a woman, and women have the right to marry a man... 'seperate but equal' rights indeed. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
15. more importantly, it will open up job opportunities for women
too many women have gotten laid off since 2000 and are sitting at home or have downgraded their skills so that they can get a clerical job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
16. Way overdue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC