The ERA was Re-introduced in the Senate for Ratification Yesterday

[niyad]

The ERA was Re-introduced in the Senate for Ratification Yesterday




Just in time for Mother’s Day, U.S. Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.) re-introduced yesterday a joint resolution to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the U.S Constitution. S.J. Res. 15 was introduced with 26 original cosponsors including Senator Mark Kirk (R-Il). The resolution would remove the deadline set by congress for ratification of the ERA. U.S. Representative Jackie Speier is expected to introduce an ERA resolution in the House.



The ERA originally passed congress in 1972. Like every proposed constitution amendment, after it passed by a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate, the ERA was sent to the states for ratification. Congress, however, had imposed – in the preamble of the ERA – a seven-year deadline on the ratification process. That deadline was eventually extended to June 30, 1982. Thirty eight states must ratify an amendment before it can become part of the U.S. Constitution. Thirty five states ratified the ERA by the 1982 deadline.

If the deadline is lifted, only three more states would need to ratify the amendment. This is called the “three-state” strategy. As part of the strategy, ERA activists in unratified states are working to clear a path for the ERA. The Illinois State Senate passed the ERA in 2014 with a strong 39-11 vote, and in February 2015, the Virginia State Senate – which never took a floor vote on the ERA during the campaign in the 1970s and 1980s – voted to pass the ERA for the fourth time since 2011.

“As America prepares to celebrate Mother’s Day, we should be working to ensure that all women realize the promise of equal protection under the law. We cannot allow an arbitrary deadline to stand in the way of equal rights for our mothers and daughters, wives and sisters, aunts and grandmothers,” said Senator Cardin.

The ERA 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.”

. . . .

http://feminist.org/blog/index.php/2015/05/08/the-era-was-re-introduced-in-the-senate-for-ratification-yesterday/

[awoke_in_2003]

1. K&R...

too bad it doesn't stand a snow ball's chance in Hell with this congress. The attacks on women's rights for the last 20 years or so are disgusting.

[winter is coming]

2. It's shameful that this didn't happen decades ago. n/t

[niyad]

3. yes, it is. in this 'greatest, bestest, most wonderful country in the world", women still

do not count.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

11. I worked on that campaign....

It was ridiculous to hear the NONSENSE coming out of the other side.

Conservatives were claiming if it passed men and women would have to share the same public restrooms. Women all over the country were freaking out about the idea of a guy coming in on them while they were on the toilet. Then they claimed it would mean women would have to be drafted to go to war. They claimed women would HAVE to work and couldn't be stay at home moms.

Conservatives then portrayed themselves as the heroes who would keep your bathrooms private, keep you from dying on the battlefield and claim they were defending mom and apple pie.

[CTyankee]

26. I remember the bathroom argument. It's as if they didn't know we had unisex toilets

already on airplanes!

And we have LOTS of women in the military on active duty...

[Novara]

4. It's pathetic we even need an ERA

But we do. And it probably won't pass. "All men are created equal?" Yeah, tell that to a woman with a straight face. Or LGBT, or black Americans, or...well, anyone who isn't a straight white male.

[niyad]

6. well, that was exactly what was meant, "all white, property-owning males are created equal"

the rest of us simply do no count.

[etherealtruth]

5. I am surprised this current congress hasn't tried to repeal the 19th amendment

This is great news

[niyad]

7. actually, there have been proposals for that very thing.

[freshwest]

19. Yes, they have. The GOP and Constitutionalist parties have both pushed this for decades.

Last edited Sat May 9, 2015, 11:49 PM - Edit history (1)

They are angling for an Article V Convention to rewrite the United States Constitution, from the state houses. They are keeping count and making sure the legislators will march in lockstep. That is why they elect anyone, no matter how outrageous who will vote their will. They are very close to that majority, if they do not already have it, to call for it.

We can rest assured with a GOP POTUS it will happen. With an Article V concvention, the great tool box to make the Constitution fit the Koch agenda will be opened and the government will rewritten to set up their system. Check ALEC or Reid and Sander's revelations that I have posted here to see what they intend. They have nearly fulfilled it now.

It is all legal. I don't know if the ERA will be ratified in time to stop them, no more than an amendment to overturn Citizens United. Obama said immediately after CU that a grassroots movement would be required to do this and he was talking about from the statehouses. It was the state houses that denied us the ERA before. In the meantime, the media did its job and people did not vote, enabling more of the Koch agenda to be enacted.

They want Birthright Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Treatment Under the Law, all part of the 14th repealed. Rand Paul wants the convention to rewrite the 14th to declare who is a person under the Constitution will be and we know Rand Paul (R- national personhood bill) intends to take that back to conception. Or since the GOP doesn't know when that occurs, at ejacultion. Women = Concubines.

The 4th did not protect women any more than it did Dred Scott, so the 14th and other Civil War amendments had to be passed. People who think they are voting against 'anchor babies' are really putting their own liberty and rights of citizenship at risk, but they don't think about what they are really supporting. Imagine a GOP trifeca and endless war. Many of the GOP envision a Starship Trooper form of citizenship, where only those who serve in the military will have the right to vote. The rest are just their servants and have no voice.

And like the Koch brothers and Grover Nordquist, Libertarians and Truthers, they want the IRS gone. To make sure those pesky laws never show their faces again.

Who can forget Ann Coulter and since then other women's remarks that women should not be voting?

Like LGBT, women are suspect, they are 'the wrong sex.'

We need the ERA more than ever. It would make all the restrictive laws lose their powers, but we must get control of the state houses to make it happen. The Senate can introduce this but it cannot makes it laws, as it is merely a proposal to the states, AFAIK.

And who controls the states? The ones who showed up in 2010 and 2014 to vote. What a nightmare.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

29. jeeezus...

[freshwest]

31. TIME IS NOT ON OUR SIDE. It's why I ignore more online. The real game is in the statehouses.

Also mocking the GOP is a waste of time, as they are nowhere near as dumb as the mockers. Like it or not, they are changing this society in ways that are irreparable.

The way to stop what they are doing is obvious. But it won't be revealed online or on television or radio, they are for the other side.

[beam me up scottie]

8. k&r

[mopinko]

9. wont have that jackass henry hyde messing w the vote in il this time.

hated that bastard till the day he died for that.

[lastlib]

15. I still hate his rotting putrid corpse......

...along with those of Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond.

[mopinko]

16. well, that.

he is buried around here somewhere. i should go piss on his grave, but i hate standing in line.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

10. Fill the visitor galleries of these states with women.

[Archae]

12. The ERA will never be passed I'm afraid...

Too many misogynists and outright kooks demagoguing it, like the current GOP and Phyllis (Damned Hypocrite) Schlafly.

[calimary]

14. That woman has been a thorn in our side for decades. Maybe she's one of the undead?

If ANYBODY's way was made easier by the rise of feminism, it was hers.

[Archae]

21. Of course.

Running around the country giving speeches rather than staying at home and being a housewife like she preaches.

Like I said, "Damn Hypocrite."

[calimary]

22. Exactly. Why do these people want to take all the advantages for themselves and then

when they succeed, all they want to do is pull the ladder up behind them so nobody else can benefit the way they did. clarence thomas is another one. They're all over everywhere. They literally infest the republi-CON party. IGMFU (I Got Mine, F-U).

[okasha]

13. Yet another reason why we must retake Congress.

[freshwest]

25. It passed Congress in 1972. They can't do it alone. The states defeated the ERA:

Last edited Sun May 10, 2015, 04:58 AM - Edit history (1)

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal rights for women. The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman.

In 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress and went to the state legislatures for ratification.

The resolution in Congress that proposed the amendment set a ratification deadline of March 22, 1979. Through 1977, the amendment received 35 of the necessary 38 state ratifications. Five states later rescinded their ratifications before the 1979 deadline, though the validity of these rescissions is disputed. In 1978, a joint resolution of Congress extended the ratification deadline to June 30, 1982, but no further states ratified the amendment before the passing of the second deadline, leaving it three short of the required threshold. Several feminist organizations that dispute the validity and the permanence of the ratification deadline, along with also disputing the validity of the five rescissions, continue to work at the federal and state levels for the adoption of the ERA.

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

I'm not sure why people don't know this, and I am not saying you don't. Control of Congress is very important, but state houses matter just as much. It may not even pass both houses of Congress now. In fact, it's highly doubtful.

The current rightwing plan as stated by Paul Ryan and Rand Paul is more likely than the ERA or CU amendments going anywhere.

The GOP intend to form an Article V Convention as established in the US Constitution. They only need sufficient GOP state legislatures to call for one. They have stated that is their goal in controlling state legislatures.

As of this year, the break down in the state houses by part are:

State houses controlled by a Democratic majority: 16

State houses controlled by a Republican majority: 33

http://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_composition_of_state_houses

Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification.[1]

Amendments may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either:

Two-thirds (supermajority) of both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States Congress;

OR

By a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at present 34) of the states.

To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either (as determined by Congress):

The request of legislatures of three-fourths (at present 38) of the states;

OR

State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (at present 38) of the states.

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

So the GOP is a few states short. Paul Ryan said in 2012 that they intend to repeal the 14th Amendment to eliminate Birthright Citizenship. But it also includes Due Process and Equal Treatment Under the Law. It cannot be overstated how much of current law is dependent on the 14th. The 4th Amendment has proven insufficient to protect women's and did not work for Dred Scott, due to bigotry.

It took a Civil War to get the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments ratified. There are some GOP and RWNJs who want to abolish the IRS (16th Amendment) and Women's Sufferage (19th Amendment). They have been pushing for both for 20 years, and their main allies have been various media pundits. The message has been put out in forthright manners as well as subtle ones by repetition and auxiliary means and it's been working. You can kiss degrees of income inequality arguments aside without the governmen't ability to level taxes without the IRS.

Others want to eliminate all after the 10th Amendment (the basic states' rights philosophy). The Tenthers will eliminate everyhing after that.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Additional_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

They GOP, Libertarians, Koches, et al. are close to their goal. The ERA and CU amendments feel good but they do not fit political reality. So while getting a better Congress is quite important, the work is in the states and that is where the GOP trumphs the Democrats in off year and local elections.

Time is not on our side. An Article V convention is in our future unless we diversify state legislatures with Democrats. And this is the toolbox the RWNJs are keen to use. There is no reason to believe they will do anything remotely liberal, progressive or anything else we want to happen with that power.

In fact, they've already announced their plans. Rand Paul wants to redefine citizenship as beginning at conception. He has been frustrated by Obama's constant refusal to pass his national person hood law that he has attached to every CR.

JMHO...

[Terra Alta]

17. K&R

It's really sad that in 2015 we are still fighting to get this passed. We still have a long way to go.

[seafan]

18. Somebody should ask Jeb Bush why he opposed ratifying the ERA as FL governor in 2003.

Jeb Bush, 2003: The ERA is so "retro..... it's like going back and wearing bell bottoms."


And ask Marco Rubio the same question, when he was Florida House Speaker in 2007.

Washington Post, March 28, 2007:

ERA backers have enjoyed limited success so far -- Florida's House speaker has yet to assign the bill to committee...

These people make me sick.


Reintroduced in 2015.

[davidn3600]

20. Would it even be valid?

I thought Congress has to first extend the deadline.

[Jim Lane]

23. The linked article is confusing on that score. There are two different approaches.

One approach is for Congress to extend or eliminate the deadline. Then advocates could try to get more states to ratify so as to reach the necessary total of 38. Advocates call this "the three-state strategy" but that may be overoptimistic. I think there are 35 states that ratified the ERA at one point or another but some of them later rescinded their ratifications. Advocates take the position that rescission is not allowed. I think that there's no clear precedent on the question. From the extremely sparse language of the Constitution, one could make a colorable argument either way.

The other approach is to begin the process anew. This is embodied in a bill introduced by Congressmember Carolyn Maloney:

Maloney's House bill, along with sister legislation to be introduced in the Senate, proposes that the ERA process start from scratch -- with Congress first voting to pass it by two-thirds, followed by a new push to ratify the amendment in 38 states.

(from "The politics of feminism: An unlikely partnership" on the CNN website)

Maloney may be taking that tack because she wants a more sweeping ERA than the one that Congress ratified in 1972. According to that CNN article, Maloney's proposed amendment reads:

"Women shall have equal rights in the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

The second sentence is the ERA that's already passed Congress and is the subject of the three-state strategy. The first sentence is new. It gives me the impression that Maloney intends her version of the ERA to go beyond government action and govern private conduct. For example, her Republican ally, Cynthia Lummis, says that the ERA would protect against sex-selective abortion. In other words, it would restrict abortion rights. It would also arguably prohibit private men's clubs. For that matter, if some guys get together every Friday night for a poker game, and they'd be open to admitting new male players but not women because they want to keep it stag, that might violate this version of the ERA, even though there's no state action involved (so it clearly would not violate the 1972 version). A desire to be broader than the 1972 version would be the obvious reason to advocate starting from scratch instead of pursuing the three-state strategy.

[patricia92243]

24. Is there a list of the states that have ratified it! n/t

[progressoid]

28. Ratifications 1972–1977

Hawaii (March 22, 1972)
New Hampshire (March 23, 1972)
Delaware (March 23, 1972)
Iowa (March 24, 1972)
Idaho (March 24, 1972)
Kansas (March 28, 1972)
Nebraska (March 29, 1972)
Texas (March 30, 1972)
Tennessee (April 4, 1972)
Alaska (April 5, 1972)
Rhode Island (April 14, 1972)
New Jersey (April 17, 1972)
Colorado (April 21, 1972)
West Virginia (April 22, 1972)
Wisconsin (April 26, 1972)
New York (May 18, 1972)
Michigan (May 22, 1972)
Maryland (May 26, 1972)
Massachusetts (June 21, 1972)
Kentucky (June 26, 1972)
Pennsylvania (September 27, 1972)
California (November 13, 1972)
Wyoming (January 26, 1973)
South Dakota (February 5, 1973)
Oregon (February 8, 1973)
Minnesota (February 8, 1973)
New Mexico (February 28, 1973)
Vermont (March 1, 1973)
Connecticut (March 15, 1973)
Washington (March 22, 1973)
Maine (January 18, 1974)
Montana (January 25, 1974)
Ohio (February 7, 1974)
North Dakota (March 19, 1975)
Indiana (January 24, 1977)

Ratifications rescinded 1973–1979

Legislators in the following states voted to rescind their earlier ratification of the ERA:[21]

Nebraska (March 15, 1973 – Legislative Resolution No. 9)
In 1972, the Nebraska Legislature adopted the improperly-worded Legislative Resolution No. 83 followed by correctly-worded Legislative Resolution No. 86, to ratify ERA. In 1973, the Nebraska Legislature then adopted Legislative Resolution No. 9 to rescind only the aforementioned improperly-worded LR No. 83. This may mean that Nebraska—technically—did not rescind its 1972 ERA ratification.[22]
Tennessee (April 23, 1974 – House Joint Resolution No. 371 and Senate Joint Resolution No. 29)[22]
Idaho (February 8, 1977 – Senate Joint Resolution No. 133 and House Concurrent Resolution No. 10)
Kentucky (March 17, 1978 – House (Joint) Resolution No. 2 and House (Joint) Resolution No. 20)
The Lieutenant Governor of Kentucky, Thelma Stovall, who was acting as governor in the Governor's absence, vetoed the rescinding resolution.
South Dakota (March 1, 1979 – Senate Joint Resolution No. 1 and Senate Joint Resolution No. 2)
Senate Joint Resolution No. 2, while not going quite so far as to rescind its prior ratification of ERA, stipulated that the ERA's opportunity for ratification—by any state of the Union—would expire on March 22, 1979; furthermore, Senate Joint Resolution No. 2 made clear that South Dakota's own ratification of the ERA would only be valid up until March 22, 1979, and that any ratification activities transpiring after that date anywhere else would be considered by South Dakota to be null and void.

The Constitution is silent regarding whether the governor of a state has any authority regarding whether that state ratifies an amendment to the Constitution. The Constitution is likewise silent regarding a state's authority to rescind its ratification of a proposed, but not yet adopted, constitutional amendment.[23]

Incomplete ratifications

At various times, in 9 of the 15 non-ratifying states, at least one house of the legislature approved the ERA, those 9 states being:

Florida – whose House of Representatives voted to ratify the ERA on March 24, 1972, with a tally of 91 to 4; a second time on April 10, 1975, with a tally of 62 to 58; a third time on May 17, 1979, with a tally of 66 to 53; and a fourth time on June 21, 1982, with a tally of 60 to 58.
Illinois – whose Senate voted to ratify the ERA in May 1972, with a tally of 30 to 21; and whose House of Representatives voted to ratify the ERA on May 1, 1975, with a tally of 113 to 62; and again on May 21, 2003, with a tally of 76 to 41 (House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment No. 1). At various times, votes were conducted in both houses of the Illinois General Assembly on the question of ratifying the ERA and while most members voted in favor of ratification, the result was always less than the requirement of a three-fifths supermajority vote in each house of the Illinois General Assembly being required for ratification by that state.
Louisiana – whose Senate voted to ratify the ERA on June 7, 1972, with a tally of 25 to 13.
Missouri – whose House of Representatives voted to ratify the ERA on February 7, 1975, with a tally of 82 to 75.
Nevada – whose Assembly voted to ratify the ERA on February 17, 1975, with a tally of 27 to 13; and whose Senate voted to ratify the ERA on February 8, 1977, with a tally of 11 to 10.
North Carolina – whose House of Representatives voted to ratify the ERA on February 9, 1977, with a tally of 61 to 55.
Oklahoma – whose Senate voted to ratify the ERA on March 23, 1972, by a voice vote.
South Carolina – whose House of Representatives voted to ratify the ERA on March 22, 1972, with a tally of 83 to zero.
Virginia – whose Senate voted to ratify the ERA on February 7, 2011, with a tally of 24 to 16 (Senate Joint Resolution No. 357); a second time on February 14, 2012, with a tally of 24 to 15 (Senate Joint Resolution No. 130); a third time on February 5, 2014, with a tally of 25 to 8 (Senate Joint Resolution No. 78); and a fourth time on February 5, 2015, with a tally of 20 to 19 (Senate Joint Resolution No. 216).

Over the past twenty years, ratification resolutions have also been introduced, but failed to win full approval in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, and Oklahoma.[24][25]

[Reter]

27. How can they extend the deadline without going back in time to before 1982?

n/t?

[BumRushDaShow]

30. Just like

how they can "stop the clock" for midnight deadlines when trying to finish up legislation to replace something about to expire.

[Reter]

35. Key words "about to expire"

Big difference in extending a midnight deadline at 11:59 PM vs. one with a deadline that passed in 1982. Extending it after is cheating at its worst.

I'm not on board. If a right-wing Amendment failed with a deadline of 1982, some of us would go ballistic if Tea Baggers tried to still call it "live", rather than start over. I'm not a hypocrite, so I must be consistent on this as well.

[BumRushDaShow]

37. You didn't read the link

To put the scale of the project in perspective, the namesake of the 1992 volume, Parliamentarian Emeritus Floyd M. Riddick, said in a 1978 interview that at that point, he had already researched more than a million precedents.

Several of them amount to legislative “magic tricks,” which skilled politicians can use to bend the rules. And others are just plain weird.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_40/Riddicks-Tome-Unlocks-Quirky-Senate-Powers-209360-1.html?pg=2&dczone=news

Even from the preface per here - (PDF)

It should also be noted that certain language in some precedents has been modified in various instances to make the rulings of the Chair jibe with the rules as presently written. To illustrate: the use of "1 o'clock" and "2 o'clock" as stated in previous years by the Chair will now read "one hour after the Senate convenes" or "two hours after the Senate convenes." These changes in the standing rules of the Senate have been necessary in order to make the daily procedure of the Senate literally accurate in the definition of morning business and Morning Hour. Likewise, the language of the precedents cited in Senate Procedure have been so corrected.

So for example, the Senate can come into session at 2 pm and begin with "Morning Business".

They can do what they want and you have no choice in the matter.

[AngryAmish]

32. Let the brassiere bonfire begin...

[jamzrockz]

33. Lets assume this amendment

passes tomorrow, how exactly is this going to benefit women? I am scratching my head trying to figure out how this is going to benefit women. I cannot think of one law that benefits men that would be given to help them. So please, can someone please help me out here.

[UTUSN]

34. R#76 & K nt

[Ms. Toad]

36. Great. Now we can have a second go at being told we aren't equal. n/t

[niyad]

38. . . . .