SENATE BILL: Equal Rights Amendment (Sent to the Regions)

[TJ in Oregon]

How does this not require the abolishment of separate bathrooms for men and women in public buildings? It makes gender essentially the same as race and separate bathrooms for whites and blacks would not be legal.

[TJ in Oregon]

How does this not require the abolishment of separate bathrooms for men and women in public buildings? It makes gender essentially the same as race and separate bathrooms for whites and blacks would not be legal.

AG Afleitch has already answered this.

His restroom analogy is slightly off. Firstly there would still be seperate restrooms should an establishment wish (or unisex restrooms should they wish) as long as both sexes can do what they need to do. That is common practice anyway. All the ERA would outlaw, if it even still happens, is only having toilets exclusively for one sex.

That doesn't really answer the question though. He just says that they will be able to and that transgendered individuals would be allowed to use the restroom of their post operation gender if they are post operation. But why would the establishments be permitted to maintain single-sex restrooms? That's a Separate-But-Equal reading. What is there actually in the constitution after this amendment to allow that type of discrimination other than just that we want to allow it?

[TJ in Oregon]

Napoleon brings up an interesting point about abortion.  Quite frankly, if Atlasia were to have a Roe v. Wade-esque case on its hand, I think the justices could easily legalize abortion across the board on the basis that the Constitution protects privacy rights, even if abortion is not explicitly referenced in said document.

Actually you will find this is different in our Constitution than it is in the US because Article III of the Third Atlasian Constitution says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whereas in the US, judicial review is held as an implied power in Marbury v. Madison instead of explicitly defined and pertains to implicit rights such as privacy.

Granted, the justices could still rule that way (or any way really) if they wanted, but it would require a few logical gymnastics not necessary in the US.


However, I don't see how this amendment would apply to abortions at all, seeing as how men cannot have abortions there can't really be government-induced inequality on the topic...

[TJ in Oregon]

Yeah, I still think the Court could find a way around that.

If they do on the basis of privacy rights, it would be grounds for impeachment seeing as that would be a blatant violation of the Court's powers given in Article III. At some point we have to assume the Court would follow the literal meaning of the Constitution when we write these sorts of amendments, or else there's really no point in having a Constitution at all; the Court would just make whatever laws they want

[TJ in Oregon]

By a vote of 2-1, the Committee recommends that the ERA be passed in its current form.

By a vote of 2-1, the Committee discourages amending Senator TJ's revisions to the legislation.

And finally, by a vote of 2-1, the Committee discourages amending Senator Clarence's revisions to the legislation.

Hmm... that was boring

[TJ in Oregon]

I'm going to propose the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TJ in Oregon]

Aye

[TJ in Oregon]

Aye

[TJ in Oregon]

Nay