Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    It is either 2/3s or 3/4s of the states that have to pass a proposed
    constitutional amendment for it to become law.

    re .1

    		Agreed, but feminist keep blaming the patriarchy ie: men
    for it's defeat. I really remember that the majority of men supported.
    If that is true who the heck stopped it from passing. I have an idea as
    to who, I just want to see if anyone has other ideas.


    			HAND
    			Wayne

    There are two or three ways for a proposed constitutional amendment to
    become law. Unfortunately it's been about a jillion years since i knew
    the ways but its something like
    
    1)passed by 2/3 rds of both chambers of Congress and signed by the
      president or 
    2)passed by 2/3? of the members of the legislative bodies of 3/4s of the
      states 
    3)dunno
    
    In each case, I think it requires considerably more than a simple
    majority for the law to carry.
    
    
    				herb

    Herb,

    		I understand the nuts and bolts. My question is who
    pressured the legislators into voting against it. I don't think, from
    what I know, that it was men organized against it.


    			HAND
    			Wayne 

    Wayne the Legislature in every state in this nation is who voted on
    whether or not to ratify the ERA.  In many cases legislators (mostly
    male) were elected on a pro-era platform, but then failed to vote
    "yes" on ratifying the ERA during the legislative session.  The
    legislators took into account the short-term memory of voters
    (particularly long-term incumbents) and voted to protect us poor frail
    women from disolving families, job parity, and recognition in our own
    county's constitution (barring the 19th amendment of course)
    
    If women feel the patriarchy is responsible for the failure of the ERA,
    they probably have a right to in this case.  After all their
    legislators lied, and apparently men didn't feel stronly enough about
    the lie to Vote the "rascals" out.
    
    Meg
    

    RE: .4  Wayne
    
    > I don't think, from what I know, that it was men organized against it.
    
    Were men organized FOR the ERA (to pressure legislators into passing
    it?)  How many men joined the women's groups who lobbied heavily for
    ERA to be passed?

    FWIW, I don't blame "men" (as a group) for the ERA not passing.
    
    I agree with Meg that the legislators are the ones who let us down.

    my guess is that many of the legislators got turned of by what THEY
    characterized as outlandish demands/<whatevers> from vocal women's
    groups.
    
    n.b.
    i am not saying the demands/<whatevers> were/are outlandish. I am
    speculating that the final vote of many legislators might have been
    influenced by what I am guessing THEY considered outlandish.

    It seems to me that legislators believed in the "myths" of ERA 
    (eg, men and women forced into bathrooms together til the end of
    time, and women tossed into combat as if we wouldn't be required
    to pass basic training and/or combat training.)

re: .0
>    My
>    recollection was that the majority of men supported it yet men are
>    blamed for it's demise by feminist groups. 
>
>
>   		Care to discuss.
    
    re: .2
    

>    for it's defeat. I really remember that the majority of men supported.
>    If that is true who the heck stopped it from passing. I have an idea as
>    to who, I just want to see if anyone has other ideas.
    
re: .4
>    		I understand the nuts and bolts. My question is who
>   pressured the legislators into voting against it. I don't think, from
>    what I know, that it was men organized against it.
    
    
    
    Why discuss it as you request in .0 if you already seem to have such a
    firm and solid grasp on the answer, Wayne?
    
    -Jody

    
    Meg, WHY can't the women who took the responsibility to VOTE
    for these persons who ran PRO_ERA, now take responsibility
    to effect a solution ?
    
    WHY is it the 'men' who now have ownership of the problem, in 
    your words, by "voting the 'rascals' out" ??
    
    
    christopher

    The bottom line is that it is extremely difficult to amend the
    constitution. Without pretty overwhelming public support it cannot be
    done. As mentionned before, enough people (men and women) were misled
    by silly horror stories -- or accepted the argument that the ERA was
    unnecessary as redundant -- to keep the pressure from being
    overwhelming, thus allowing the (mostly male) legislatures of barely
    more than 1/4 of the states to keep it from being adopted within the
    time frame specified in the congressional legislation for adoption.
    
    
    (As for the amendment process -- there are 2 ways: Congress passes a
    proposal by a majority vote, 3/4 of the state legislatures approve by
    majority vote. The other way (never yet used) is for state legislatures
    -- a majority, I think -- to call for a constitutional convention. This
    bypasses Congress. Such a convention would probably not be bound to a
    single amendment, but could do whatever it wanted to the constitution.
    Considering how little people seem to support things like the Bill of
    Rights when it comes down to actual questions (i.e., "Would you give up
    some rights to fight drugs?", this scenario posits a "runaway
    convention".) 
    
    Kit

    I have one vote.  I use it as carefully as I can and encourage other's
    to vote carefully.  However, there are a large number of people who
    don't even know who their congress critter and both us Senators for
    their state is, let alone their state representitives.  These are the
    people who have made incumbents basically bullet-proof in elections
    unless they are under indictment, or convicted of some felony.
    
    It isn't those of us who vote carefully and watch our legislators'
    voting records who don't effect a solution.  Beleive me, I'm sure that
    every politically responsible feminist voted against the legislators
    who lied to their constituents.  However, I'm powerless against people
    who vote only by party, or by name recognition and won't take the time,
    trouble and effort to even find out who their legislator is, let alon
    their politics.  I am also fighting the noisy, but wealthy minority who
    only see ERA as, unisex toilets, women in foxholes, and homosexual
    marriages.  These people, like me take the time to know who is in
    charge, and have the means to provide further inluence on how to vote
    than a woman who have to pay the rent, groceries and other costs for
    the family, before we can spend money on stamps and campaign
    contributions.
    
    By the way, do you know who your state represntive(s) is?
    
    Meg

Course I know who the rep's are ... I've lived here for four months, I should as
a minimum know that!

Meg, thanks for your response

I just seem to recall that during the elections the MAJOR concern of
the majority of voters was where does this candidate stand in regards to the ERA 

How that candidate felt on other equally pressing issues was no concern
A PRO-ERA stand got votes

Look at the past elections, state and national, whenver ONE issue has dominated
the political climate, every single candidate lines up on the side of the people
this is the BEST indication that people are out only for your vote

I don't question that people like yourself take time to find out who is "in charge"
what I do question is WHY do people create the political opportunity and then
want to turn around an cry FOUL when that opportunity is then siezed


christopher

    re .12
    
    thnx for corrections on the process

    RE: Knowing my state rep. Sure, talk to her all the time. 

    RE: Who killed the ERA

    Women. I do not believe that the men who voted against the ERA
    would have done so if it were not for the large numbers of woman
    who lobbied against it. All the "horror" stories I ever heard about
    the bad that the ERA would do I heard from women. I doubt that the
    majority of women were against the ERA but many were. And when people
    who have a perceived vested interest and benefit in a bill lobby
    against it that carries a lot of weight.

    RE: Men having responsibility for voting the rascals out. When did
    men become the majority in the US? I always thought that women
    outnumbered men. Also even if there are more men than woman surely
    there are enough pro-ERA men that they and all women would form a
    majority. The most reasonable conclusion is that woman have as much
    responsibility, if not more, for the ERA failing than men. Not
    admitting this costs the pro ERA a lot of credibility.

    		Alfred

    PS: The text of Article 5 of the US Constitution, which defines the
    process for amending the Constitution, follows the form feed.
    

 Article. V. 
    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
    necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
    Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
    shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either
    Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this
    Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the
    several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one
    or the other mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
    Provided [that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
    thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first
    and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and] that
    no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
    in the Senate.

    RE: .16  Alfred
    
    Women were the ones who lobbied the most heavily for passage of the
    ERA.  Phyllis Schafley (and her crew) did manage to purvey a lot of
    misinformation about the effects of the ERA, which probably did much
    to turn legislators against it.

    I do agree with you, though, that neither men (as a group) nor women
    (as a group) can be blamed for killing the ERA, even though you
    responded to the question with the simply answer "Women."

    re. 16


    		Bingo. Those were my thoughts when I enter the base note but
    I did not want state it and start a firestorm. We all share
    responsibility in the demise of the ERA but not many women will own up
    to women's responsibility ( Phyllis is after all a woman ), it's easier
    to blame men ( either elected or not ). I'm not really looking for a
    scapegoat but I would like to know how the majority of the population
    let the ERA die and not except responsibility.


    			HAND
    			Wayne 

Re: .18

Wayne, the "majority of the population" rarely cares enough to do anything.
In most elections, a turnout of 30% is considered good.

It is, I believe, an axiom that, on the whole, people dislike change, especially
so when there are doubts raised, validly or otherwise, as to the effects
of such change.  It's so easy to just go with the "devil you know".  Very
few people actually THINK about the issues and come to their own conclusions.
Most are content to be told how to think by someone else.  It's this
inertia that is so difficult to overcome.

As regards the ERA, its biggest problem, in the eyes of the public, is that
it does not describe a specific change which people can get a handle on.  It's
so short, yet each word is subject to being interpreted and misinterpreted.
And even the proponents can't say for sure WHAT the effects will be, only that
they believe the change will be for the better.

My understanding is that in most of the states where the ERA was actually
placed on the state ballot, it passed.  But the state legislatures didn't
necessarily go along with it, and in some cases, introduced resolutions to
rescind their earlier vote for passage.

Rather than look for a scapegoat, how about looking for ways to get it passed
(if that's what you're in favor of)?  Finger-pointing is a waste of energy.

					Steve

    Correct me if I am wrong here:
    
    Isn't a Constutional Ammendment only suppose to be out there (to be
    voted on) for a specific amount of time? As I recall, the ERA
    proponents wanted that time extended when it became apparent that it
    would not pass in the required time frame. As I recall, some states
    that had passed it had also requested that they be allowed to
    reconsider their votes. As I recall, both were disallowed...
    
    
    Steve

    Steve,
    
    The ERA was, I believe, the first constitutional ammendment given a
    life-span for ratification.  This gave those opposed an extra
    advantage, in that they could just prevent it from ratification in 6
    states for the appropriate amount of time.  FWIW:  one of the states
    which never ratified the national ammendment has a state ERA (Utah). 
    two of the states which voted against ratification, have never ratified
    the 19th ammendment (Missippi and Louisiana), and several states
    rescinded ratification.  
    
    Generally ammendments are ratified in two to four years, however, there
    is speculation that the deadline requirement helped opponents to the
    ERA.
    
    meg 

    IMO, the ERA failed to pass because of its wording.

    I cannot imagine ratifying such a far reaching amendment phrased
    in terms which leave much to individual interpretation.

    I understand that the "wording" of the ERA was fairly short .. if
    anyone has the exact text available I'd appreciate it if they'd post it
    here.
    
    Thanks,
    Bubba

    Read this, then consider the amount of debate surrounding the 2nd
    Amendment, which is worded quite carefully and explicitly.  Can you
    imagine how many different ways there are to implement and interpret
    this amendment?


    Section 1
    Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied nor abridged 
    by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

    Section 2
    The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation,
    the provisions of this article.

    Section 3
    This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

    Thanks for posting that, Mike.

    No, I'd never vote for that .. but .. there could have been some
    interesting consequences of this .. like there'd be no more Affirmative
    Action programs where a certain number of women had to be hired to
    appropriately balance men employees ... one could clearly not
    discriminate on the basis of sex ... then again ... someone could argue
    that there were too many men and that women were being discriminated
    against, but you couldn't hire a woman in an AA program because that
    would be discriminating against men .. endless circle ... lawyers get
    rich, we all suffer.

    Put me down as a "no" vote.

    Bubba

The biggest problem with the 2nd Amendment, Mike, is that stray comma:

> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
                           ^
> state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
> infringed."

This comma destroys any possible unambiguous interpretation of these
words.  There is no such ambiguity in the ERA.

-dick

 Ignoring the fact that the original draft did not include the offending
comma, a casual perusal of the federalist papers along with other recorded
works of the time leave no doubt whatsoever what the framers had in mind
when they penned that pesky amendment...

But Doctah, the U.S. legal system doesn't give a rat's ass about what
is or was INTENDED by a law.  It cares only what the law SAYS.  Now,
today, not 200 years ago, in a prelimiinary draft.

-dick

    The interpretation of the laws by the judiciary is an on-going
    evolutionary process.  What was INTENDED by a law is usually part
    of the consideration, but changes in society since the law was
    created are also considered.  
    						- Vick

>But Doctah, the U.S. legal system doesn't give a rat's ass about what
>is or was INTENDED by a law.

 BFD. You said that an unambiguous interpretation was impossible, and I showed
that to be false. That the US legal system is not prepared to do what is
necessary to arrive at the intended interpretation is neither a surprise
to me nor particularly relevant to the point I made.

Re: .30

Bull.

You have not shown that an unambiguous interpretation of the 2nd
Amendment, as it now stands in the U.S. legal canon, is not possible.
You have merely said that the pesky comma wasn't there in prerelease
versions of the Amendment.  That fact proves nothing about what can
be read into the amendment's released version.  Don't play elliptical
games with English and expect anyone who understands how to diagram a
sentence to buy what you're peddling.

-dick

>You have not shown that an unambiguous interpretation of the 2nd
>Amendment, [...] is not possible.

 That's what you were trying to do.

Oh, excuse me.  You have not shown that an unambiguous interpretation of
the 2nd Amendment IS possible.  As you were.  Smoke 'em if you've got
'em.

-dick

    now, i wonder what the connection is between the ERA and the right to
    bear arms?
    
    mmmm
    
    
    				herb

re .24 
    Section 1
    Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied nor abridged 
    by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
    
    Can somebody give some examples of how equalitiy of rights under the
    law ARE denied or abridged by either the U S of A or some State because
    of sex.
    
    				herb

    
    Good Question ... three examples off the top of my head ...
    
    1) Women can not fight in combat units in the military.
    
    2) Pregnant Women have been denied certain jobs because of safety
       reasons (I think the Supreme Court overturned this practice).
    
    3) Indecent Exposure laws vary by sex in some states (I think).
    
    Take care,
    Greg
    
    

    Greg,
    
    May of the indecent-exposure laws are local ordinances, and would
    therefore not be subject to the provisions of the ERA as written.
    
    The military has its own laws and is not subject to all provisions of
    civilian law.  The Supreme Court has already established this one with
    decisions such as the one in which they forbade the registering of
    women for the draft.
    
    -dick

Dick, did you want an example of where women are discriminated against by
law or did you not?  The UCMJ *is* subject to constitutionality review, 
therefore the ERA would affect it.  Saying the military "has it's own laws"
is just avoiding the problem, or restating it; you agree that law discriminates
against women, don't you?

DougO

    <you agree that law discriminates against women, don't you?> 
    Gee, I don't.
    I think it discriminates against men.
    
    

    Herb,
    
    What laws are you thinking about that discriminate against men?
    
    All those that were made to protect us poor delicate women from
    ourselves?
    
    Meg

    I was refering to the military laws
    
    what is the male/female kill ratio in the last 7 American wars?
    

    	If women had equal rights, we'd be allowed in combat.
    

    What a straight man you are!
    
    The male/female kill ratio -which feels intuitively like a reasonable
    sort of a priori measure of discrimination- suggests a lot more men are
    killed than women. 
    That's discrimination against WOMEN?
    
    
    
    
    

    
    > That's discrimination against WOMEN?
    
    If dying for your country is something you want to do.  So it
    discriminates against both men and women.  That's the way most, if
    not all, of the patriarchial inequities work.  Both "sides" lose.
    
    					- Vick

    
    	Yes, Herb, it's discrimination against women!
    
    	Women are kept out of combat (and out of chances for promotion
    	within the Military in many cases, since combat duty is very
    	important criteria) because our male-dominated government can't
    	bear the notion of fighting side by side with women.
    
    	So more men get killed.  Once again, discrimination against
    	women ALSO hurts men (in this case, it kills them.)
    
    	If the discrimination against women ended, men could share the
    	burden of combat with women.
    
    	Many men would probably rather die, though, I suspect.

    I'm jerking your chain, Suzanne!
    

    
    	Nah, you're probably jerking something else, Herb.
    

    Re: .38
    
    Just to clarify, Doug, it was Herb Nichols, in .35, who asked for
    examples.  Greg Yannekis offered some, and I pointed out to Greg that
    it is possible to invalidate some of his examples by virtue of the
    facts I listed in .37.
    
    I am well aware that the law discriminates against women in many overt
    and many subtle ways.  Greg's citation of working restrictions on
    pregnant women is a valid example.
    
    -dick

Dick, I disagree that your 'information' invalidated the example.  By the
military regulations which prevent women from entering combat, women are
systemically denied the chance to prove themselves as combat leaders, and
are subsequently discriminated against in competition for promotions.  It
is a textbook case of a law that prevents women from equal opportunity and
which would be illegal if the ERA were a part of the Constitution.  FYI,
those military regulations are only a reflection of the laws passed by the
Congress which forbid women from combat.  They aren't a separate, extra-
constitutional body of law, as you seem to be implying in .37.

DougO

    re:.37"May of the indecent-exposure laws are local ordinances, and would
    therefore not be subject to the provisions of the ERA as written."
    
    Beg pardon.  The Constitution supercedes ALL local laws and ordinances.
    
    ed

    re: .44
    > If dying for your country is something you want to do.
    
    'scuse me?  Why, for (insert your favorite deity here)'s sake, would
    anyone _want_ to die for their country?  That sounds like a suicidal
    inclination.  Isn't the object to arrange matters so that the other
    side's troops get to die for _their_ country?
    8-)
    [dale]
    

    Okay, I'll reword that to say... Women should have an equal right to
    help our enemies die for their country.
    
    						- Vick