GOP Congressman, Tells Women To Give Their Money To Democrats

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The advocates of the three-state strategy are on very shaky ground.  Their primary argument rests upon the belief that Congress can after the fact revise its decisions concerning an amendment bit that States cannot.  One could argue from a consistent basis that the 30 State ratifications that have not been rescinded are still valid, and that if eight other states approve the ERA, Congress could then act to approve it.

But then the advocates of the three-state strategy run into a second issue.  They hope to follow the example of the 1978 Congressional extension and have it go into effect with a simple majority of each house.  The constitutionality of the 1978 extension was dubious because it did not pass with the requisite two-thirds vote of each house, and I doubt that it would hold up under a challenge.  The whole point of the three-state strategy is to avoid what is for now an unwinnable two-third vote in each house of Congress and I don't see them being able to avoid it.

However, last but not least, I have this question for advocates of an effort to pass an ERA.  What is it that it would achieve that is not already being achieved via existing civil rights legislation?  Passage of the ERA seems to have as much relevance as the passage of the still pending Child Labor Amendment would have.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

However, last but not least, I have this question for advocates of an effort to pass an ERA.  What is it that it would achieve that is not already being achieved via existing civil rights legislation? 

It would create an explicit line in the Constitution to challenge the Draft on the grounds that it is sexist.

Most supporters of the ERA would probably not want a draft for either gender, so I don't think that is their goal.

In plenty of cases (esp. jobs), it is easier to discriminate against a white woman than a black man (or woman).

Doubtful we'd see any draft cases until we had an actual draft, and if single gender registration for the draft was held unconstitutional, we'd likely just see both sexes required to register.  As for job discrimination, the existing provisions to fight it wouldn't be affected in the least.  They are based on the use of the Commerce Clause rather than the Reconstruction Amendments.