Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 15, 2019, 11:59:08 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderators: Beet, Both Sides™, Apocrypha)
  Do you agree or disagree with John Oliver on the ERA?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Poll
Question: Do you agree or disagree with John Oliver on the ERA?
#1Agree  
#2Disagree  
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 12

Author Topic: Do you agree or disagree with John Oliver on the ERA?  (Read 236 times)
2,868,691
Harry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,372
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 10, 2019, 11:47:58 pm »





Yes, he lays it out very well.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,454
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2019, 12:46:43 am »

Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,743
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2019, 09:45:35 pm »

He's laid out an okay argument for having an ERA, but frankly he's just wrong about so much else. Even the original extension of the the ratification period is seriously constitutionally suspect, much less any attempt to reextend it retroactively. Moreover, if such things can be changed after the fact what about the five states that revoked their ratification?  Ordinary common law would allow such rescissions before an agreement has been finalized, so truth be told we have at best thirty-two states that currently ratify the ERA.

Since the whole purpose is to make crystal clear that women have equal rights without any chance of some future Supreme Court saying otherwise, proponents of an ERA should go for a clean ERA starting from square one rather than hoping no future court won't decide as the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho did in 1981 in Idaho v. Freeman 529 F.Supp. 1107 (1981) that Congress could not extend the ratification period and that a State can revoke its ratification of an amendment before that amendment is adopted . (SCOTUS at the time ordered the decision be stayed pending a possible ratification and then ordered it be declared moot since the purported extended ratification period had ended without a claimed ratification having occurred.)
Logged
Secret Cavern Survivor
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 49,951
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2019, 10:36:32 pm »

Morally yes, but he does get the procedural claims seriously wrong, as others have said.

It was incredibly stupid of Congress to set a deadline in the first place (why the hell should there be? the 27th amendment was ratified 200 years later and no one complained), but having set that deadline, it is part and parcel of the constitutional amendment and if they want to change it the only way to do so is pass the amendment again.
Logged
#Kavanaugh For Prison
Solid4096
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,589


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2019, 06:05:28 pm »

Morally yes, but he does get the procedural claims seriously wrong, as others have said.

It was incredibly stupid of Congress to set a deadline in the first place (why the hell should there be? the 27th amendment was ratified 200 years later and no one complained), but having set that deadline, it is part and parcel of the constitutional amendment and if they want to change it the only way to do so is pass the amendment again.

Its literally not part of the amendment that there is a deadline. In the case of the ERA, the deadline was added separately by a congressional act afterwards.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,743
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2019, 07:21:50 pm »

Morally yes, but he does get the procedural claims seriously wrong, as others have said.

It was incredibly stupid of Congress to set a deadline in the first place (why the hell should there be? the 27th amendment was ratified 200 years later and no one complained), but having set that deadline, it is part and parcel of the constitutional amendment and if they want to change it the only way to do so is pass the amendment again.

Its literally not part of the amendment that there is a deadline. In the case of the ERA, the deadline was added separately by a congressional act afterwards.

<McLaughlin!> WRONG! </McLaughlin>

The deadline was a part of self-same H.J.Res 208 (92nd Congress) that sent the ERA to the States, so the deadline wasn't added later, it was there from the beginning.  The ERA isn't the only amendment to have a time limit set in the text of the resolution sending the proposed amendment to the State rather than the text of the amendment itself, and frankly, I prefer it not be in there cluttering up the text of the Constitution with procedural details.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,563


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 13, 2019, 12:29:21 am »

It was incredibly stupid of Congress to set a deadline in the first place (why the hell should there be? the 27th amendment was ratified 200 years later and no one complained),

Wasn't it concern over the number of zombie Amendments out there that led to the deadlines becoming a thing for Amendments proposed in the later 20th century?

There's still four Amendments that are still passed by Congress and pending to the States from the early 20th, 19th or, in the case of the last Madisonian Amendment, the 18th centuries. The very example of the XXVIIth shows that those zombie Amendments are still very much able to pass. Setting time limits tidies up and prevents a situation where we still technically are waiting on the states to weigh in on "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
Logged
Secret Cavern Survivor
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 49,951
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2019, 07:06:19 pm »

It was incredibly stupid of Congress to set a deadline in the first place (why the hell should there be? the 27th amendment was ratified 200 years later and no one complained),

Wasn't it concern over the number of zombie Amendments out there that led to the deadlines becoming a thing for Amendments proposed in the later 20th century?

There's still four Amendments that are still passed by Congress and pending to the States from the early 20th, 19th or, in the case of the last Madisonian Amendment, the 18th centuries. The very example of the XXVIIth shows that those zombie Amendments are still very much able to pass. Setting time limits tidies up and prevents a situation where we still technically are waiting on the states to weigh in on "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

...wait, did that actually actually pass Congress with 2/3 majorities? When??

And yeah, I guess there's an argument for deadlines, but personally I still think that amending the constitution is so hard that if anything actually gets a 2/3 support in Congress there should be a strong presumption in its favor.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,743
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: Today at 12:54:03 am »

It was incredibly stupid of Congress to set a deadline in the first place (why the hell should there be? the 27th amendment was ratified 200 years later and no one complained),

Wasn't it concern over the number of zombie Amendments out there that led to the deadlines becoming a thing for Amendments proposed in the later 20th century?

There's still four Amendments that are still passed by Congress and pending to the States from the early 20th, 19th or, in the case of the last Madisonian Amendment, the 18th centuries. The very example of the XXVIIth shows that those zombie Amendments are still very much able to pass. Setting time limits tidies up and prevents a situation where we still technically are waiting on the states to weigh in on "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

...wait, did that actually actually pass Congress with 2/3 majorities? When??

And yeah, I guess there's an argument for deadlines, but personally I still think that amending the constitution is so hard that if anything actually gets a 2/3 support in Congress there should be a strong presumption in its favor.

It's the Corwin Amendment and it passed Congress in the days after the Deep South had seceded and Fort Sumter started the Civil War.  It was an attempt to woo the South back into the Union peaceably. Only five states ever ratified and two have since rescinded their ratifications. The Illinois House sent to the Illinois Senate a resolution earlier this month seeking to have Illinois rescind its ratification. If successful, the only two state remaining will be Kentucky and Rhode Island. Ohio rescinded back in 1864 and Maryland in 2014.

Frankly, I wish if we'd going to do anything with the moribund amendments, it would be to ratify the Child Labor Amendment that was sent to the States in 1924.  It's all too plausible that SCOTUS could continue to narrow the scope of the Commerce Clause to the point that they'd overturn United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941) which upheld the FLSA, which among other things regulates child labor.  Until then the controlling case had been Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) in which SCOTUS had ruled that Congress could not regulate child labor.
Logged
Secret Cavern Survivor
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 49,951
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: Today at 01:42:18 am »

Frankly, I wish if we'd going to do anything with the moribund amendments, it would be to ratify the Child Labor Amendment that was sent to the States in 1924.  It's all too plausible that SCOTUS could continue to narrow the scope of the Commerce Clause to the point that they'd overturn United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941) which upheld the FLSA, which among other things regulates child labor.  Until then the controlling case had been Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) in which SCOTUS had ruled that Congress could not regulate child labor.

Very good point, yeah. There should definitely be a movement to ratify it.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,743
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: Today at 10:35:17 am »

Frankly, I wish if we'd going to do anything with the moribund amendments, it would be to ratify the Child Labor Amendment that was sent to the States in 1924.  It's all too plausible that SCOTUS could continue to narrow the scope of the Commerce Clause to the point that they'd overturn United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941) which upheld the FLSA, which among other things regulates child labor.  Until then the controlling case had been Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) in which SCOTUS had ruled that Congress could not regulate child labor.

Very good point, yeah. There should definitely be a movement to ratify it.

Especially since it would be easy to get at least seven of the ten needed states: Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.  Delaware I left off simply because it skews corporate-friendly in its politics, but it's a possibility. Virginia could happen if the Democrats get the Assembly back.
Logged
Pages: [1] 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