POLL: Should the Equal Rights Amendment be re-introduced?

[Alexander]

Given that we now have Congress, as well as the majority of state legislatures, should we ask our leaders to re-introduce the ERA?

Please explain your reasoning below.

[Ken Burch]

1. I voted "yes"

But I'm not holding my breath.

[Greyhound]

4. Ditto.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Of course it should.

Equality is a basic principle of human rights.

It won't get reintroduced though. Not yet anyway.

[AllegroRondo]

3. Make that a big yes

"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 once it passes, immediately declare the Defense of Marriage act unconstitutional. Not allowing gay marriage is at its base discrimination based on sex.

[suston96]

5. No.

It would be redundant. There already is such an "equal rights" amendment"

"Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

Women are "persons." The Fourteenth says "persons" and not "male persons". There is more than adequate coverage with the Fourteenth.

[benddem]

6. the fact that there is already an equal rights ammendment

doesn't matter. It still doesn't apply to women. We need the ERA and it doesn't need to be changed in any way.

[suston96]

8. ......doesn't matter. It still doesn't apply to women....

Huh? Tell the US Supreme Court that it doesn't. A "person" as used in the Constitution includes men and women. That covers equal rights for all.

The argument could be made that a special amendment, the Nineteenth, had to be passed to enforce a woman's right to vote. But that was because many states were not franchising women.

List some rights, privileges, or immunities that women are being denied that are not presently covered by the Constitution.

[wuushew]

7. there is a theory that the deadline never expired in the first place

Some ERA supporters argue that the earlier 35 ratifications are still valid, and that only three more ratifications are necessary without Congress having to even resubmit the ERA anew to the nation's state lawmakers. According to this theory, three additional states could belatedly ratify the ERA, arguing that the history of the 27th Amendment—which was ratified more than 200 years after it was first proposed—supports the thinking behind this approach. The theory postulates that, under the 1939 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Coleman v. Miller, Congress would then—in such a scenario—be in a position to decide whether or not the ERA had been validly ratified under the Court's "political question" doctrine which reserves to Congress the power to pass judgment on the validity of a ratification.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

[loyalsister]

9. It's very short and direct

All it says is that you can't treat us differently based on sex.
It is possible to do that now.
It is most definitely necessary!

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.

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

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

[NorthernSpy]

10. yeah, now's the time to dig up some old distraction from the 70s...

For gawd's sake, this country is mired in an unnecessary war in Iraq while we are drowing in debt, with poverty on the rise and wages on the decline for working class Americans. Our industrial base -- which our former prosperity was built upon -- is all but dead. We are losing jobs. Tens of millions of our people have no health insurance, and even those who are insured are often driven into bankruptcy by healthcare costs. There are some very unreasonable people in the world who would like us dead.

It will be very, very hard to solve even just one of the problems I listed -- never mind that we have plenty of others waiting to take its place.

Women (and I am one) already have equal rights under law. The ERA is redundant. With so much real work to be done, let's not allow ourselves to get sidetracked with some pointless distraction from the 70s.