It’s Been 90 Years: Time to Pass the ERA (actually, 91 years)

[niyad]

. . . .

Equal Rights Amendment

Paul was the original author of a proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution in 1923.[7] The ERA was passed by both houses in Congress in 1972 and was then submitted to the state legislatures for ratification. Approval by 38 states was required to ensure adoption of the amendment. Not enough states—only 35—voted in favor in time for the deadline. However, efforts to pass the ERA are still happening, as well as efforts to pass a new equality amendment. Although the amendment hasn't passed yet, almost half of the U.S. states have adopted the ERA into their state constitutions.[13]

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

It’s Been 90 Years: Time to Pass the ERA!



Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Jackie Speier (D-CA) gathered on the steps of the Supreme Court Thursday morning to demand that the Equal Rights Amendment finally pass.
The congresswomen, along with Feminist Majority president (and publisher of Ms.) Ellie Smeal, NOW president Terry O’Neill and other feminist leaders and activists, called on legislators to codify women’s equality in the constitution. As a reminder of the anti-woman rhetoric that has lately informed public policy, Rep. Speier quoted Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia, “Certainly the constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex, the only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t.”

She continued,

A justice of the Supreme Court has said publicly that the constitution does not prohibit discrimination based on sex, and that is precisely why we need the ERA. Those words should haunt every woman in this country.

The good news, she said, is that “equality is only 24 words away,” referencing the text of the ERA:
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 congresswomen have each introduced ERA-related legislation. In March, Rep. Speier called on legislators to remove the deadline by which states must ratify the amendment (the last deadline was June 1982, and by that date the ERA was just three states shy of passing). If passed, her bill would give those last three states a chance to ratify the amendment.

In September 2013, Rep. Maloney re-introduced the ERA in Congress (it was first introduced by Alice Paul in 1923), asking legislators to pass the bill and send it to the states for ratification. Most feminists are supporting both strategies, because they ultimately lead to the same goal.
As Rep. Speier said Thursday, “The ERA is critically necessary because it would once and for all give women the remedies for justice when they face sex discrimination.”

Ninety years is long enough—it’s time to pass the ERA. To get involved, tweet your support with the hashtag #ERANow.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/2014/07/24/its-been-90-years-time-to-pass-the-era/

[Small Accumulates]

1. Absolutely agree!

It's absurd that this is even a question.

[femmocrat]

2. A HUGE K & R

Thank you to Reps. Maloney and Speier!

[Kath1]

3. Yes!

This is waaaaay overdue. Tweeting my support.

[sheshe2]

4. KnR

[Mnemosyne]

5. K&R! nt

[Algernon Moncrieff]

6. In the wake of Hobby Lobby, this is absolutely time to re-introduce/rescind the time limit

[Jim Lane]

8. Do you have a link to a legal analysis of the ERA and Hobby Lobby?

It seems to me that the reasoning of the Hobby Lobby majority would not be affected by the ratification of the ERA.

It's too facile to say "Hobby Lobby allowed discrimination against women, the ERA would prohibit discrimination against women, therefore we need the ERA in the wake of Hobby Lobby." What that overlooks is that Hobby Lobby allowed discrimination by a private company, but the ERA would prohibit only discrimination by government.

This distinction comes from legal precedents concerning racial discrimination. The government can't discriminate, which is why Brown v. Board of Education held that racially segregated public schools were unconstitutional. That doesn't prevent private discrimination. It also doesn't prevent the government from applying neutral policies even when they operate to protect private discrimination. For example, civil rights demonstrators who staged sit-ins at segregated lunch counters expected to be arrested and were arrested. The government was enforcing private property rights, even if the private entity made its decisions on a discriminatory basis. That wasn't unconstitutional.

Although Hobby Lobby has sparked renewed interest in ratifying the ERA, I haven't seen a solid legal argument that there's actually any connection. I wish somebody could tell me the basis on which even one member of the Hobby Lobby majority would change his vote if the Constitution included the ERA.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

14. The decision underscores the need for legal equality for women to be written into the Constitution.

Changing the decision will require more SCOTUS justices to be nominated by Democrats.

No, I do not have a link to the decision.

[Jim Lane]

15. I have the decision. I meant a link about what effect the ERA would have.

My point is that the ERA would not write legal equality for women into the Constitution. It would affect only discrimination by governments. Discrimination by private entities, such as Hobby Lobby, would still be on the same footing as racially segregated lunch counters during the Jim Crow era.

I agree with you about changing the composition of the Court. That's the most promising avenue for overruling Hobby Lobby, as well as the campaign-spending cases and the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act.

One difference is that the proposed amendment allowing regulation of campaign spending would clearly overturn Citizens United and McCutcheon. Even the five conservatives would be forced to yield to such an amendment. The same is not true of the ERA and Hobby Lobby. Notable is that Ginsburg, in her dissent, did not argue that the Equal Protection Clause was a basis for rejecting Hobby Lobby's position, even though she had written the opinion for the Court in United States v. Virginia, invoking the Equal Protection Clause to overturn a denial of equal rights to women.

[awoke_in_2003]

7. long overdue...

men that think they are superior are not.

[redqueen]

9. K&R nt

[niyad]

10. . . .

[demmiblue]

11. K&R

[smirkymonkey]

12. K&R!

It's well overdue.

[niyad]

13. . . .