Conference turris::womannotes-v3

Ann:

> Note 840.15  REGENT::BROOMHEAD
> < Florida and Illinois >-
>
> ... It was the research of a respected journalist, who narrowed down
> the failure of the ERA to the reneging of eleven politicians in
> two states, where the veto of the motion was exceptionally close.

  That still doesn't make your statement a fact.  Instead, it makes it
  the opinion of "a respected journalist".  But even if the supporting
  facts are as you have presented them so far, it *STILL* doesn't make
  your statement a fact.  After all, the ERA amendment was given a rather
  unusual exception to the normal procedure for ratifying a constitional
  amendment -- If the votes you cited in FL and IL took place during the
  post-extension period, then the amendment as a whole surely would have
  been challenged in court.  We have no information to guide us on what
  the result of that court challenge would have been, so we can make no
  assumption as to whether or not the ERA would have become law.

  Oh, and meanwhile, care to provide a citation to the article?

                                   Atlant

	Can someone tell me what ERA is please?

	Thanks,
	Heather

Equal Rights Amendment - anyone have the text?

            <<< IKE22::$1$DKB700:[NOTESFILES]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 1.3                            Welcome!                             3 of 38
ULTRA::ZURKO "snug as a bug in a rug"                14 lines  17-APR-1990 10:35
                           -< Full Text Of The ERA >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
		The Equal Rights Amendment
			complete text


Section 1.
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or 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.

    And one of the major "reasons" given for not passing this had something
    to do with unisex toilets, (a *horrible* alternative to merely limiting
    the lives of women), and the draft, (if the government *sends* women to 
    war, how can they justify their attempts to limit women's access to
    abortion?).  The fact that there was no draft at the time and hasn't
    been one since is of course, of no consequence.  
    
    Our government will need major, concrete, absolute, undeniable and un-
    shakable proof that granting women the same protections under law that we 
    now grant men will be a positive step for everyone, (not *just* women), 
    and will have absolutely no drawbacks to nor any negative affect on the 
    freedoms and traditions men have become accustomed to.  And of course 
    there's no such thing as that kind of proof nor any such thing as change 
    not affecting everyone in some way, so, well, there you have it.  
    
    The ERA doesn't appear to have any immediate benefit to men, and may even
    cause them a bit of a hassle as they readjust to equality.  All that
    remains, then, is finding an acceptable excuse to give for placing this
    feminist-generated bit of claptrap in the roundfile.  Unisex toilets and 
    a non-existent military system are as good as any, I guess.
    
    Like the issue of abortion, there are some things our democracy simply
    doesn't want the people to decide.  I used to wonder why.  But when I
    began to realize that women are in the majority, I began to wonder less.
    
    Regarding the choice offered in an earlier reply, (what kind of
    candidate would you rather have...), I'd remove the ERA or abortion
    issue entirely and prefer to require all candidates to do after
    election what they said they would do, before election.  Since they
    cannot be trusted, I believe they should publish a written proposal and
    an action plan, and after elected, attend periodic meetings with their 
    constituents to gauge their progress.  Right now they get to say "No
    new taxes!" which after they're elected, changes to, "Know new taxes!"
    or "No, *new* taxes!".  But then that's getting more general to the
    level of the election process which I've always thought was a joke
    designed to placate the public into thinking they really are paying
    taxes to a democracy that cares about them.
    
    Sandy Ciccolini

re .5 (and 1.3):  wasn't there also a 7 year expiration date?

Matt:

> re .5 (and 1.3):  wasn't there also a 7 year expiration date?

  I think the "7 years" was in regards to the general process of passing
  any ammendment to the United States Constitution:  Once the Federal
  Government passes the proposed amendment, a supermajority of the
  states ( CEIL(50 * 2/3) = 34, right?) must also ratify the amendment
  within 7 years.

  The ERA failed to gain this ratification and was given an extension
  to the 7 year time-period.  Unfortunately, in that extended time
  period, states began to rescind their ratification (or at least talk
  about it) and no one knows for sure what the legal fall-out of it
  all would have been had "ratification" been achieved during this
  extended time period.

                                   Atlant

the 7-yr expiration is not a date attatched to a proposed amendment to the
Constitution, which once amended applies for all future, unless amended again.
The Constitution outlines the steps needed to modify the Constitution itself.
A proposed amendment, after being passed by the Congress and signed by the
President, must then also be ratified by the legislatures of 2/3 of the States
in the Union, within a time limit of 7 years of its (signing by the Prez? I
think yes).

Alternately, the States (actually some proportion thereof, but I don't know
what) can, via their legislatures, vote to convene a Constitutional Convention,
at which amendments may be proposed and voted on.  I know less about this 
avenue of change, but do know that once a Constitutional Convention is convened,
there is --> no restriction at all <-- on what amendments may be proposed and/or
adopted.  It is this lack of restraint to the process that gives many, myself
included, pause.

(now, if this were Soapbox, a certain noter who is never wrong* (really!) would
correct my mistakes and fill in the gaps in my knowledge...)

Sara

	Phew - no wonder it hasn't got anywhere - wouldn't it be easier to
	pass a few laws, rather than try to change the constitution?

	Or am I missing something?

	Heather

Heather, the point is that you don't change the Constitution lightly.  It *is*
easier to change laws, and that's why the Equal Rights Amendment was proposed --
once Constitutionally protected, it is far harder to overturn equality 
regardless of gender than it would be with a collection of laws that attempted
to do the same thing.

Not impossible, mind you.  I am reliably informed that, originally, income taxes
were made specifically unconstitutional.  An amendment changed that, and now we
have the IRS, what a conservative friend calls "the closest thing in the U.S. to
a secret police" -- and indeed, the IRS and the DEA are the only parts of the
government that can "legally" circumvent the Constitution's guarantees against
unreasonable search and seizure, and take your property _before_ you are 
judged to be guilty or innocent of an offense.

well, it ain't perfect, but all in all I'd rather live in the U.S. than
any elsewhere.

    Than *anywhere* else?  The Canadian Rockies are gorgeous.  Bermuda's
    got some interesting plusses.  The US is hardly the be-all and end-all
    but it's easy to understand the preference for "the devil you know".
    The alternative is to "know new devils" and decide if they constitute
    actual devils to you, relative to the devils you currently know.   Oops
    - we citizens aren't supposed to think.  I mean think like that.
    
    S.

Sandy, I'd love to *visit* the Canadian Rockies, and lots of other places.  I
had a choice to make, I could have by simply saying I wanted to, relinquished
my citizenship here and become Israeli, and believe me, being Jewish in a
culture dominated by Jews is comfortable in ways a Christian who's never lived
in a non-Christian country cannot even imagine!  But it was not for me.  Maybe
if I had been blind to the warts, sotospeak, of Israeli society, I could have
become a whole-hearted Israeli, but as it turned out what I discovered is that
for better or worse, I'm an American.  I have no illusions that the United
States is a perfect, just, wart-free (sotospeak) society!    But I'm an
American, first and last.

Sure, part of it may be the devil I know, but only part.  A large part of it is
that I consciously believe in the innate Right of every person to 'Life,
Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness', and I believe in the Bill of Rights too.

It's not perfect by any stretch, but it is perfectable (in theory!)

Sara

A reader of =womannotes=, sent me the following, which corrects my errors in
a previous reply.

Seems I'm not even as much of a Constitutional scholar as I thought! :-)

---------------------------------------------------------
A two-thirds majority is not sufficient to pass a Constitutional
amendment.  Article V of the Constitution reads as follows:

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
						   ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ (ie not 2/3-S.)
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 passing a few laws.

One of the arguments used against passage of the ERA was that it "wasn't needed"
because of the equal rights laws already on the books.

The approach of passing laws to promote equality has been followed for years.
Problem is, laws can be passed in both directions so long as the Constitution
is mute on the subject. Passing the ERA would make  it much easier to overturn 
those laws still on the books which run counter to the notion of equal rights 
for women.

    .9: also note that signing by the Pres is not called for...
    
    The INS has a number of search and seizure privileges similar to those
    of IRS and DEA.  I saw a report on the habits of bail bondsmen also
    and that was scary because they don't even have governmental backing.
    (other than greenbacks)
    
    ed

    I seem to remember that a number of the existing amendments contain
    language which set a different time limit for their ratification by the
    states -- other than 7 years.  I wonder if a _shorter_ limit would have
    made a difference in the fate of the ERA?

    re:.6
    
    *sigh* Not everything in life is a case of men vs women struggling for
    control of each other's lives.
    
                                    L.J.

    re:.11
    
    	� [...]  the IRS, what a conservative friend calls
    	"the closest thing in the U.S. to a secret police"
    	-- and indeed, the IRS and the DEA are the only parts
    	of the government that can "legally" circumvent the
    	Constitution's guarantees against unreasonable search
    	and seizure, and take your property _before_ you are
    	judged to be guilty or innocent of an offense. �
    
    Actually, *any* division of the Treasury Department (of which the
    IRS is one) has this power. And it has been abused. There was some
    flack a number of years ago because Customs Agents were being
    taken along on FBI operations because they would be able to search
    without a warrant. The fallout of this came in favor of the "good
    guys", as Customs agents were thereafter prohibited from being
    included in any operation that did not fall under the jurisdiction
    of the Treasury Department.
    
    This ability to circumvent search and seizure regulations is also
    the alleged reason why the Secret Service falls under the Treasury
    Department rather than the Justice Department.
    
    On the other hand, I don't believe that the DEA (which falls under
    Justice) has this power.
    
    --- jerry

    I've been reminded offline that only certain amendments have had
    *any* time limit for ratification attached to them.  Does anyone know
    how the ERA came to be so blessed?
    
    I'd be tempted to state that those who did _that_ helped kill the ERA
    in the end.

	Not having a consitution means that we go by laws and precidents. 
	This means we get some screwy things sometimes, but it does mean that
	it can move more easily with the times (don't mention Sunday trading!),
	and there isn't a second process to go through.

	Does having a written consitution actually makes laws appear to have 
	less substance or power? And does it then take longer to get any
	major change through, and "ratified" - if at all.
	
	Heather

Heather, my understanding of it is that the Constitution is there to define and
-forever-guarantee- certain rights, duties, and privs, to the people, from whom
all power in the U.S. is (in theory, of course) ultimately derived.  It serves 
as a check on the popular thing-of-the-moment pushing through laws which 
deprive the people of their power, or citizens of their rights.

We go very much by laws and precedents, also; our system is descended from
yours, but we diverged over two main things, the 'divine right of kings to rule'
(yes, I know that to be both exaggerated and outdated :-), and what is in
today's parlance and debate called 'fairness' in taxation.  Note, we _still_
haven't figured out a definition of "fair" well enough to stop arguing over it!

Well, it's a noble experiment, and we're still working on it.  I need to read
and learn more of it -- I'm reading _The_Great_Little_Madison_ aloud to my
daughter, nights, a biography of our 4th prez and one of our founders -- but I
try to keep my attitude about our form of government as much like Ben Franklin's
as possible.  Great character, witty writer, practical doer.  A man I could 
wish to be more like!

Sara

    re .18
    
    *Sigh*  I agree, not everything is.  That's quite an extrapolation
    you've made there.  But the Equal Rights Amendment, (what we're taking
    about here), and specifically the resistance to it most certainly is. 
    
    S.

>Heather, my understanding of it is that the Constitution is there to define and
>-forever-guarantee- certain rights, duties, and privs, to the people, from whom
>all power in the U.S. is (in theory, of course) ultimately derived.  It serves 
>as a check on the popular thing-of-the-moment pushing through laws which 
>deprive the people of their power, or citizens of their rights.

It also seems as if it's slow in adding rights, rather than curtailing them, but
then, nothing's perfect.

>We go very much by laws and precedents, also; our system is descended from
>yours, but we diverged over two main things, the 'divine right of kings to rule
>(yes, I know that to be both exaggerated and outdated :-), 

Especially when she's a Queen!!!!	:-)

Heather