Would the ERA have had an even tougher time today than it did in the 1970s?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:06:02 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Would the ERA have had an even tougher time today than it did in the 1970s?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Yes or no
#1
Yes, it wouldn't have even been sent to the states
 
#2
Yes, it would have been ratified by fewer states
 
#3
No, it would've gotten closer to ratification but still fallen short
 
#4
No, it would've passed
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 39

Author Topic: Would the ERA have had an even tougher time today than it did in the 1970s?  (Read 2362 times)
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,678


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 25, 2015, 11:37:43 PM »



Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


The Equal Rights Amendment, of course, famously fizzled at the last minute a few states short of its goal, likely due to an overly strict time limit and the conservative awakening rumbling in the 1970s.

I actually suspect the ERA would've done far worse today than it did back then, especially since the right wing would argue ferociously that "it's not necessary anymore" or that "it's outdated." I certainly don't see states like Idaho or Wyoming or Kansas or Nebraska ratifying it.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 25, 2015, 11:44:21 PM »

It would unquestionably fail today, particularly with the most recent election results.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 25, 2015, 11:45:10 PM »

It depends on if by "the 1970s" you mean 1972/73 or post-1975. I don't think it would have a tougher time than post-1975, when many states rescinded it. It would most likely have a tougher time than 1972/73.

Actually, I think it's hard to predict what the debate over ERA would look like today. One could easily see it getting rejected out of hand in deep red states, but one could also see it as something akin to gay marriage, where younger GOPers end up embracing it and it develops a forward momentum.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2015, 11:52:26 PM »

The ERA is much like the proposed Child Labor Amendment.  In theory, it would desirable, but in practice I fail to see where it is needed.  What exactly would passage of an ERA do that isn't already being done (or least is doable by Congress if it chooses to act)?  I can't think of anything.
Logged
Samantha
totheleft
Rookie
**
Posts: 232


Political Matrix
E: -9.10, S: -4.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2015, 08:12:39 AM »

The ERA is much like the proposed Child Labor Amendment.  In theory, it would desirable, but in practice I fail to see where it is needed.  What exactly would passage of an ERA do that isn't already being done (or least is doable by Congress if it chooses to act)?  I can't think of anything.

Constitutional amendments give Constitutional basis for the passage of laws. If you've ever met a libertarian who would repeal every major legislative accomplishment of the past century on the grounds that they are "unconstitutional", then you can understand why amendments are desirable.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 26, 2015, 09:35:05 AM »

The ERA is much like the proposed Child Labor Amendment.  In theory, it would desirable, but in practice I fail to see where it is needed.  What exactly would passage of an ERA do that isn't already being done (or least is doable by Congress if it chooses to act)?  I can't think of anything.

Constitutional amendments give Constitutional basis for the passage of laws. If you've ever met a libertarian who would repeal every major legislative accomplishment of the past century on the grounds that they are "unconstitutional", then you can understand why amendments are desirable.

Because such libertarians have no power beyond their Internet strongholds?
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 26, 2015, 09:52:49 AM »
« Edited: May 26, 2015, 12:20:01 PM by AggregateDemand »

If the ERA was passed again and then ratified, we'd have to kick 30% of women out of public universities and strip their maternity care rights under public healthcare statutes. Then we'd have to eliminate asymmetric child support and domestic violence statutes.

Women are a privileged and protected class. Throwing away their protections and privileges in the name of equality would be incredibly stupid, but a man has no business commenting.

By all means, get yourselves blown to pieces in a foreign military conflict.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 26, 2015, 11:39:00 AM »

The easy solution for maternity rights, (which would also help boost women's employment) would be to give both parents time of work to be doled out between either parent as they choose.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 26, 2015, 01:07:32 PM »

AggregateDemand repeats MRA talking points. Why am I not surprised?
Logged
H. Ross Peron
General Mung Beans
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,406
Korea, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 26, 2015, 04:09:26 PM »

If the ERA was passed again and then ratified, we'd have to kick 30% of women out of public universities and strip their maternity care rights under public healthcare statutes. Then we'd have to eliminate asymmetric child support and domestic violence statutes.

Women are a privileged and protected class. Throwing away their protections and privileges in the name of equality would be incredibly stupid, but a man has no business commenting.

By all means, get yourselves blown to pieces in a foreign military conflict.

*Tips fedora*
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 26, 2015, 04:12:14 PM »

95% of Republican politicians would oppose it nowadays.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 26, 2015, 07:25:35 PM »

The ERA is much like the proposed Child Labor Amendment.  In theory, it would desirable, but in practice I fail to see where it is needed.  What exactly would passage of an ERA do that isn't already being done (or least is doable by Congress if it chooses to act)?  I can't think of anything.

Perhaps this can answer some of your questions.

Like the proposed Right to Vote Amendment, it would make explicit and enshrined into the Constitution protections that cannot be rolled back with the turning of the political tide, or made subject to the whims of politicians.  
-------------------------------------------

And to answer the question of this thread, I am resigned to the fact that Republicans are likely to hold on to at least one house of Congress (as well as a majority of state legislatures, particularly in the South) for generations to come.  I am under no delusions -the vast majority of what I want to have accomplished (including the passage of the Equal Rights and Right to Vote amendments) will not be.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 27, 2015, 12:30:48 AM »

Frodo, I'm underwhelmed by those arguments.  They assume that mere words can substitute for political will. I also was looking for a specific piece of legislation that either would promote equal rights by would not be constitutional without the ERA or one that works against the intent of the ERA yet would would be constitutional without the ERA.  Also, the Right to Vote Amendment's main purpose is to end the felon disenfranchisement that currently is allowed, so it doesn't merely  enshrine current rights, but adds to them, thus making it unlike the ERA.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 27, 2015, 01:52:15 AM »

Yes

But I'm pretty sure the Democratic/Liberal strongholds would still go for it, if brought up again.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,614


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 27, 2015, 02:14:12 AM »

Option 1, duh
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 27, 2015, 04:52:45 AM »

Lol @ opposing maternity leave as privilege for women.  Only conservatives (and/or sexists) oppose paternity leave in the first place.

There's no question it wouldn't pass the Senate in today's environment.  Be lucky to get all of the Dems plus a few female Republicans.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 27, 2015, 09:23:53 AM »
« Edited: May 27, 2015, 09:25:33 AM by AggregateDemand »

AggregateDemand repeats MRA talking points. Why am I not surprised?

I'm not the one who'd issue a decree mandating that both or neither participants are arrested in a domestic violence dispute. I'm not the one who'd casually discard maternity privileges in public healthcare for poor people, nor do I have a sick fetish for imagining a hypothetical daughter of mine being conscripted or randomly selected from enlisted personnel for front line duty in a combat zone.

Consider just the military component for a moment. If applicants really were selected at random for combat zones, and we did away with backdoor misogyny like physical aptitude and performance tests, what do you think would happen to female enlistment? If enlistment plummets, what happens to female access to employment, healthcare, housing, job/medical training, and education entitlements?

If you vote Democrat, you are deserving of pity on account of your mental handicap. You're not to be taken seriously.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 27, 2015, 09:53:34 AM »

If you vote Democrat, you are deserving of pity on account of your mental handicap. You're not to be taken seriously.

>libertarian calling someone else 'mentally handicapped'
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 27, 2015, 09:53:41 AM »

If you vote Democrat, you are deserving of pity on account of your mental handicap. You're not to be taken seriously.

Okay, that's it. Either there's no way you're serious or you're an absolute sicko. What in the world would make you think it's remotely acceptable to say that about the voters of a perfectly mainstream opposing political party?
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 27, 2015, 09:57:50 AM »

The Equal Rights Amendment wouldn't make it out of committee today. It's funny just how much attitudes on racial and sexual equality have moved backwards since then, even if there's been a little bit of progress on other fronts (most notably in the field of LGBT equality). I guess when you have a mass movement of pissed off people fighting for their rights that puts a lot of things into perspective, compared to today, where the only mass movements we see are unorganized, spur of the moment, hashtag affairs.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 27, 2015, 10:16:21 AM »

Okay, that's it. Either there's no way you're serious or you're an absolute sicko. What in the world would make you think it's remotely acceptable to say that about the voters of a perfectly mainstream opposing political party?

Opposition to what? Democrats cling to the world's worst entitlement system, while alleging that Republicans are all closet racists. When they can't reform their own failed healthcare system, they allege that Republicans secretly scuttled the real reforms by turning Democrats against one another. On a local level, Democrats have total and complete control of the most impoverished areas in America, yet their constituents still believe that Republicans are secretly siphoning away their prosperity by refusing to live in their Democratically-controlled hell holes.

The Democratic Party is a cult.
Logged
Torie
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 27, 2015, 11:07:19 AM »
« Edited: May 27, 2015, 11:26:46 AM by Torie »

Okay, that's it. Either there's no way you're serious or you're an absolute sicko. What in the world would make you think it's remotely acceptable to say that about the voters of a perfectly mainstream opposing political party?

Opposition to what? Democrats cling to the world's worst entitlement system, while alleging that Republicans are all closet racists. When they can't reform their own failed healthcare system, they allege that Republicans secretly scuttled the real reforms by turning Democrats against one another. On a local level, Democrats have total and complete control of the most impoverished areas in America, yet their constituents still believe that Republicans are secretly siphoning away their prosperity by refusing to live in their Democratically-controlled hell holes.

The Democratic Party is a cult.

You might look up the definition of cult. If you are going to go out of your way to insult those with whom you disagree on a personal level, you should at least use the correct epithets. And what is your motivation to get folks to loathe you I wonder? What purpose does it serve?  Yes, I know some on the other side are not angels themselves, but you're sprinting way ahead of most of them with your act.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 27, 2015, 12:05:51 PM »

You might look up the definition of cult. If you are going to go out of your way to insult those with whom you disagree on a personal level, you should at least use the correct epithets. And what is your motivation to get folks to loathe you I wonder? What purpose does it serve?  Yes, I know some on the other side are not angels themselves, but you're sprinting way ahead of most of them with your act.

People asked Radical Republicans the same question: Why do you scuttle your own agenda by demanding immediate emancipation, rather than waiting for slave states to turn free in the future?

I don't know, Torie. You tell me.

The current system is not sustainable. The lower middle class is suffering needlessly. Civility is a pointless impediment to progress. Do you think future recessions, depressions, and further issues with disparity of wealth will be civil in the future?
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 27, 2015, 02:45:57 PM »

The Equal Rights Amendment wouldn't make it out of committee today. It's funny just how much attitudes on racial and sexual equality have moved backwards since then, even if there's been a little bit of progress on other fronts (most notably in the field of LGBT equality). I guess when you have a mass movement of pissed off people fighting for their rights that puts a lot of things into perspective, compared to today, where the only mass movements we see are unorganized, spur of the moment, hashtag affairs.


Keep in mind that the first ladies or would-bes haven't said much on anything like it, as opposed to Rosalynn Carter and Betty Ford both being very very strong supporters of the ERA in the 70's.

Nevermind that FLs have a bit more clout than they used to and that they very could use that figure-head clout to bring it up.

Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 30, 2015, 10:17:45 PM »

The ERA is much like the proposed Child Labor Amendment.  In theory, it would desirable, but in practice I fail to see where it is needed.  What exactly would passage of an ERA do that isn't already being done (or least is doable by Congress if it chooses to act)?  I can't think of anything.

Sex/gender discrimination is held to a lower standard of scrutiny than racial/ethnic discrimination, and the ERA would fix that.

If the 14th Amendment prohibited sex discrimination, then the 19th Amendment wouldn't have been necessary, and it wouldn't have taken 50 more years for women to get the right to vote.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.062 seconds with 14 queries.