Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 16, 2019, 09:35:46 am
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active

  Atlas Forum
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: True Federalist)
  Is Virginia About To Give Us A 28th Amendment?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Poll
Question: Will The ERA Pass The HoD?
#1Yes  
#2No  
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 26

Author Topic: Is Virginia About To Give Us A 28th Amendment?  (Read 2682 times)
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,748
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: January 18, 2019, 02:27:54 am »

If the Democrats were smart they would make a big push for this. It may be symbolic, but it'll remind people of where Republicans stand on women.
Plenty of women don't support the ERA.

The pro-life movement has a lot of concerns about how courts would interpret it with respect to abortion.  And that includes pro-life women.  Now, this amendment sounds nice, so most people who don't know every detail about its potential effects probably support it, but that is mostly surface-level support.

Well yeah, the abortion rights debate is about women's rights. The more people realize that, the more support for the pro-life movement will collapse.

Back in the 1970s, the perception that supporters of the ERA shared that viewpoint is what galvanized opposition and led to its defeat.  That's one reason supporters today insist that ratifications can't be rescinded and that there's no need to start over from square one. Even if the ERA could get the necessary two-thirds of each house of Congress, there's no way it gets 38 states to ratify it today. If the ERA is tied to abortion, its support for the ERA that collapses, not the pro-life movement.
Logged
MarkD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,595
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 18, 2019, 09:41:58 am »

Is it inevitable that if the ERA gets ratified, the Supreme Court will infer abortion rights from it? That is, will the Court view anti-abortion laws as being anti-women laws and discriminatory?
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,748
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 18, 2019, 09:53:05 am »

Is it inevitable that if the ERA gets ratified, the Supreme Court will infer abortion rights from it? That is, will the Court view anti-abortion laws as being anti-women laws and discriminatory?
While I've not looked into the claim to see if it's an exaggeration, I do know that anti-abortion activists claim that two State Supreme Courts (NM & CT) ruled that State ERAs in their State Constitutions did so. However, IIRC, the cases involved whether legal abortions should be funded the same as other medical procedures and not whether abortion should be legal.
Logged
Wolverine22
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,326
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 18, 2019, 01:42:33 pm »

I have no idea if a state is able to rescind its ratification and I won’t try to answer that question. However I do believe the Congress-mandated deadline is unconstitutional. The constitution simply states that if 3/4 of the states ratify the Amendment, it becomes a part of the constitution.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,748
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 18, 2019, 04:34:52 pm »

I have no idea if a state is able to rescind its ratification and I won’t try to answer that question. However I do believe the Congress-mandated deadline is unconstitutional. The constitution simply states that if 3/4 of the states ratify the Amendment, it becomes a part of the constitution.

The two are essentially the same question. Does the amendment process have to stay strictly within the literal wording of Article V? Note that some previous amendments with a time limit had them included within the text of the amendment itself, which would both be obviously permissible under Article V and be not subject to extension of the time limit by Congress. The 22nd to 26th amendments as well as the ERA had the time limit included in the joint resolution sending it to the States rather than the text of the amendment itself. Probably in reaction to the attempted extension of the ERA, the DC Voting Rights Amendment returned to the earlier practice of including a time limit in the text of the amendment itself. So even if States were to start ratifying it like has lately been done with the ERA, it would be pointless.

Incidentally, of the four amendments that are unambiguously before the States, only the Child Labor Amendment has any real chance of passage. Article the First, with its defective language, is unworkable as sent to the States and pointless if interpreted as it had been originally drafted. No one is worked up about foreign Titles of Nobility these days, and I can't see the Corwin Amendment ever being adopted unless its weaselly language was desired to protect some other "domestic institution" such as heterosexual marriage.
Logged
#Kavanaugh For Prison
Solid4096
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,594


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: January 18, 2019, 04:55:58 pm »

I have absolutely no idea of how the ERA would affect abortion jurisprudence; not even which side it would work towards the advantage of, and anyone who claims to know is deceiving themselves.
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,490


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: January 22, 2019, 08:29:51 am »

If the Democrats were smart they would make a big push for this. It may be symbolic, but it'll remind people of where Republicans stand on women.
Plenty of women don't support the ERA.

The pro-life movement has a lot of concerns about how courts would interpret it with respect to abortion.  And that includes pro-life women.  Now, this amendment sounds nice, so most people who don't know every detail about its potential effects probably support it, but that is mostly surface-level support.

Well yeah, the abortion rights debate is about women's rights. The more people realize that, the more support for the pro-life movement will collapse.

Back in the 1970s, the perception that supporters of the ERA shared that viewpoint is what galvanized opposition and led to its defeat.  That's one reason supporters today insist that ratifications can't be rescinded and that there's no need to start over from square one. Even if the ERA could get the necessary two-thirds of each house of Congress, there's no way it gets 38 states to ratify it today. If the ERA is tied to abortion, its support for the ERA that collapses, not the pro-life movement.

Yes I'm aware of that, but it's not the 1970s anymore. Most people today are very leery of being tied towards sexism - even pro-lifers will try to claim they support womens' equality, that their position is about the fetus, etc. I've noticed a lot of centrist people even buy into it.
Logged
Representative fhtagn
fhtagn
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,183
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.39, S: 0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: January 22, 2019, 10:54:24 am »


Img
Logged
Storr
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 473


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: January 22, 2019, 11:01:35 am »

Well, it seems it's dead in Virginia for 2019 at least.

https://wtop.com/virginia/2019/01/va-wont-ratify-era-this-year/

"WASHINGTON — The bid to make Virginia the final state needed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment was stopped in the House of Delegates Tuesday morning."

"A House subcommittee on privileges and elections voted 4-2 along party lines to recommend killing the House and Senate resolutions that would have ratified the amendment, which declares that “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 Virginia House recommendation means it is almost certain the resolutions will not make it to the House floor."

Logged
Flyersfan232
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 397


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: January 27, 2019, 12:17:08 pm »

If the Democrats were smart they would make a big push for this. It may be symbolic, but it'll remind people of where Republicans stand on women.
Plenty of women don't support the ERA.

The pro-life movement has a lot of concerns about how courts would interpret it with respect to abortion.  And that includes pro-life women.  Now, this amendment sounds nice, so most people who don't know every detail about its potential effects probably support it, but that is mostly surface-level support.

Well yeah, the abortion rights debate is about women's rights. The more people realize that, the more support for the pro-life movement will collapse.
if a real life abortion is even film on every tv in this country it would surge.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,748
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: February 02, 2019, 05:40:20 pm »

Implying all women should be pro-choice is as idiotic as implying that all pro-life men think women aren't capable of rational thought. Please keep the hyperbole down.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC