Law Illinois Ratifies ERA Amendment to Constitution - 36 years too late, guys.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...equal-rights-amendment-decades-after-deadline



Illinois state lawmakers voted Wednesday to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment — decades after Congress’s deadline to ratify the measure expired.

The Illinois House passed the measure 72-45, the Chicago Tribune reported. The state Senate had voted in favor of ratification last month, and it does not require the support of Gov. Bruce Rauner (R).

The passage sets the stage for a possible legal battle over the amendment, since Congress’s deadline for states to ratify the amendment expired in 1982.

But supporters argue that because a 1789 amendment was ratified more than two centuries later, in 1992, the Equal Rights Amendment could still be added to the Constitution, the Tribune noted.

Congress approved the amendment in 1972. But only 35 states ratified it ahead of the deadline, three short of the number required to add it to the Constitution.

Nevada similarly ratified the Equal Rights Amendment last year after the deadline.

Lawmakers in both chambers of Congress introduced identical pieces of legislation in 2017 to remove the ratification deadline.

Supporters argue that the amendment is necessary to officially guarantee equal rights for all American citizens, regardless of sex.

However, opponents argue that the amendment would expand abortion rights for women.

“I am appalled and embarrassed that the state of Illinois has not done this earlier,” Democratic state Rep. Stephanie Kifowit, a Marine veteran, told the Tribune. “I am proud to be on this side of history and I am proud to support not only all the women that this will help, that this will send a message to, but I am also here to be a role model for my daughter.”
Click to expand...
Ready for "Legal Deadlines are Problematic" salt from the SJWs to explain why it should still count? (Spoiler: it doesn't)

People with a woeful lack of understanding of basic Constitutional Law are already stroking themselves off in FB comment sections nationwide, and I'm just too tired to start refuting them right now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Click to expand...
Now that’s what I call pandering!

Hey we ratified it! Look at how progressive we are in support of women! Aren’t we progressive!

Edit:Honestly I hope it happens for the sheer clusterfuck the implementation would be. You would no longer be able to discriminate in any way by sex. Which means everything, EVERYTHING, every little nitpicky thing would have to be coed.

WNBA? Discriminatory
Separate bathrooms? Discriminatory
Separate barracks for women and men in the military? Discriminatory

It will be a glorious level of shit never seen before.
 
If they can ratify it after the deadline, then other states should be allowed to unratify it.
 
Piss Clam said:
Four states already did that.

Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, and Kentucky.
Click to expand...

Well I'm sorry that Hortator disagrees. They maybe right, because it is actually five states.

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/ratification.htm

*Five states have voted to rescind or otherwise withdraw their ratification of the ERA. (See below for a discussion of the legal status of such rescissions.)

STATE DATE
Nebraska March 15, 1973
Tennessee April 23, 1974
Idaho Feb. 8, 1977
Kentucky March 20, 1978
South Dakota March 5, 1979
Click to expand...
 
neverendingmidi said:
Now that’s what I call pandering!

Hey we ratified it! Look at how progressive we are in support of women! Aren’t we progressive!

Edit:Honestly I hope it happens for the sheer clusterfuck the implementation would be. You would no longer be able to discriminate in any way by sex. Which means everything, EVERYTHING, every little nitpicky thing would have to be coed.

WNBA? Discriminatory
Separate bathrooms? Discriminatory
Separate barracks for women and men in the military? Discriminatory

It will be a glorious level of shit never seen before.
Click to expand...
Equal rights do not outlaw legitimate differentiation. For example, laws mandating equal rights for different races don't mean that a movie studio can't hire a particular race or gender for a particular part in a movie. See bonafide occupational qualifications.

The ERA is basically a constitutional amendment enshrining in the constitution what we already guarantee with federal laws. So it's harder to repeal than an ordinary federal law.

It's important, because (for example with free speech) as we've seen in Europe, merely stating in theory that you support "free speech" is very different from an actual constitutional right to free speech.

But not much will change in people's day-to-day lives.
Piss Clam said:
Four states already did that.

Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, and Kentucky.
Click to expand...
Piss Clam said:
Well I'm sorry that Hortator disagrees. They maybe right, because it is actually five states.

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/ratification.htm
Click to expand...
It's debatable about whether or not a state is allowed to rescind a ratification.
 
The reason it never was ironed out (if you can rescind) was because the ERA failed before the minimum number ratified it, would be interesting, but it's an academic exercise for legal scholars at this point, unless we get another amendment on the board that does hit the limit. and someone else tries to back out.
 
It's debatable about whether or not a state is allowed to rescind a ratification.
Click to expand...

It has never been challenged. Wasn't what I was talking about though.
 
Hortator said:
I can find better political discussion here than most websites devoted solely to that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the occasional Trump cheerleading gets annoying, but currently the internet is in a sad state with regards to actual political debate.
 
Wait, does this or does this not make affirmative action unconstitutional?
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
Click to expand...

(paging @AnOminous for real legal perspective)

DO IT FAGGOTS
 
This shit hasn't been decided.

My utterly out of my ass guesses?

Unless Congress, when deciding on an amendment, specifies a date, states can ratify it whenever.

If they do, though, that's binding.

States can ratify it either forever, or until the date Congress specified expires.

Congress can only change the expiration date on ratification by the same vote percentage they needed to issue the original amendment proposal (2/3 supermajority in House and Senate).

States can rescind their ratification vote any time before it becomes final. After it does, they can't.

Until the Supreme Court decides any of this shit, though, I'm just pulling shit out of my ass to the degree anyone else is. That's just my hot take pile of turds on the floor.
 
I'm pretty sure it's indisputable that states can change their vote before a final count is tallied. Hell, that has legal precedent all the way back to the country's founding.

Other than that this doesn't matter and isn't a big deal. Nothing stronger than a federal law is needed. Probably not even that. But an amendment is harmless and totally symbolic, too.

No one is ever going to 'rescind womens' rights.' It would be like trying to institute an absolute monarchy with an army of musketeers by this century.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom