Current Events > The Equal Rights Amendment could be ratified soon

Topic List	Page List: 1
Damn_Underscore 04/25/18 5:01:53 PM #1:	The Illinois Senate just ratified it, and if the Illinois House of Reoresentatives ratifies it then that's 37 states that have ratified the ERA out of 38 needed. And if that happens, then there will be a huge push to get that last ratification. The main issue is that four states have rescinded their ratifications, but the Constitution doesn't say whether their previous ratifications will count or not, so this would go to the Supreme Court. The Equal Rights Amendment says 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. --- Shenmue II = best game of all time Shenmue = 2nd best game of all time <cite>Damn_Underscore posted [p:900294326] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote>The Illinois Senate just ratified it, and if the Illinois House of Reoresentatives ratifies it then that's 37 states that have ratified the ERA out of 38 needed. And if that happens, then there will be a huge push to get that last ratification. The main issue is that four states have rescinded their ratifications, but the Constitution doesn't say whether their previous ratifications will count or not, so this would go to the Supreme Court. The Equal Rights Amendment says <quote>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.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
s0nicfan 04/25/18 5:03:41 PM #2:	Does this... actually add anything that isn't already there? --- "History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz <cite>s0nicfan posted [p:900294412] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote>Does this... actually add anything that isn't already there?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Damn_Underscore 04/25/18 5:17:09 PM #3:	Well for one thing it would probably totally change divorce court in the US --- Shenmue II = best game of all time Shenmue = 2nd best game of all time <cite>Damn_Underscore posted [p:900295124] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote>Well for one thing it would probably totally change divorce court in the US</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Damn_Underscore 04/25/18 5:58:16 PM #4:	bump --- Shenmue II = best game of all time Shenmue = 2nd best game of all time <cite>Damn_Underscore posted [p:900297306] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote>bump</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SomeonesAlt 04/25/18 6:09:17 PM #5:	s0nicfan posted... Does this... actually add anything that isn't already there? I think it's just symbolic for whatever reason. This is 37 years late, lol --- But Whose? <cite>SomeonesAlt posted [p:900297879] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote><cite>s0nicfan posted...</cite> <quote>Does this... actually add anything that isn't already there?</quote> I think it's just symbolic for whatever reason. This is 37 years late, lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ThePieReborn 04/25/18 6:37:32 PM #6:	SomeonesAlt posted... s0nicfan posted... Does this... actually add anything that isn't already there? I think it's just symbolic for whatever reason. This is 37 years late, lol No, it would change equal protection cases in a substantial fashion. Currently sex is not a suspect criteria with regards to equal protection, because the core purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment concerns race and national origin. This amendment would make sex an explicit suspect criteria, and sexual discrimination cases and state actions allegedly discriminating on the basis of sex (for example the leaning towards the mother in custody cases) would be subject to strict scrutiny and require the state provide a compelling state end and the action taken be the least restrictive alternative. It wouldn't be ground shattering, but it would not merely be symbolic. --- Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire! <cite>ThePieReborn posted [p:900299253] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote><cite>SomeonesAlt posted...</cite> <quote><cite>s0nicfan posted...</cite> <quote>Does this... actually add anything that isn't already there?</quote> I think it's just symbolic for whatever reason. This is 37 years late, lol</quote> No, it would change equal protection cases in a substantial fashion. Currently sex is not a suspect criteria with regards to equal protection, because the core purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment concerns race and national origin. This amendment would make sex an explicit suspect criteria, and sexual discrimination cases and state actions allegedly discriminating on the basis of sex (for example the leaning towards the mother in custody cases) would be subject to strict scrutiny and require the state provide a compelling state end and the action taken be the least restrictive alternative. It wouldn't be ground shattering, but it would not merely be symbolic.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SomeonesAlt 04/25/18 6:39:21 PM #7:	ThePieReborn posted... SomeonesAlt posted... s0nicfan posted... Does this... actually add anything that isn't already there? I think it's just symbolic for whatever reason. This is 37 years late, lol No, it would change equal protection cases in a substantial fashion. Currently sex is not a suspect criteria with regards to equal protection, because the core purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment concerns race and national origin. This amendment would make sex an explicit suspect criteria, and sexual discrimination cases and state actions allegedly discriminating on the basis of sex (for example the leaning towards the mother in custody cases) would be subject to strict scrutiny and require the state provide a compelling state end and the action taken be the least restrictive alternative. It wouldn't be ground shattering, but it would not merely be symbolic. Oh, well thanks for the clarification --- But Whose? <cite>SomeonesAlt posted [p:900299333] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote><cite>ThePieReborn posted...</cite> <quote><cite>SomeonesAlt posted...</cite> <quote><cite>s0nicfan posted...</cite> <quote>Does this... actually add anything that isn't already there?</quote> I think it's just symbolic for whatever reason. This is 37 years late, lol</quote> No, it would change equal protection cases in a substantial fashion. Currently sex is not a suspect criteria with regards to equal protection, because the core purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment concerns race and national origin. This amendment would make sex an explicit suspect criteria, and sexual discrimination cases and state actions allegedly discriminating on the basis of sex (for example the leaning towards the mother in custody cases) would be subject to strict scrutiny and require the state provide a compelling state end and the action taken be the least restrictive alternative. It wouldn't be ground shattering, but it would not merely be symbolic.</quote> Oh, well thanks for the clarification</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 04/25/18 6:40:33 PM #8:	s0nicfan posted... Does this... actually add anything that isn't already there? I believe this makes gay marriage a constitutional right since it would be discriminatory to consider the sex of the people being married, as well as power of attorney rights, adoption, etc. I'm sure there's some benefit in it for trans as well. Not groundbreaking, and as it was said several decades late but it puts in protections that are very hard to remove. --- https://puu.sh/tcLsT/24f4611235.png https://i.imgur.com/dQgC4kv.jpg <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:900299399] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote><cite>s0nicfan posted...</cite> <quote>Does this... actually add anything that isn't already there?</quote> I believe this makes gay marriage a constitutional right since it would be discriminatory to consider the sex of the people being married, as well as power of attorney rights, adoption, etc. I'm sure there's some benefit in it for trans as well. Not groundbreaking, and as it was said several decades late but it puts in protections that are very hard to remove.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Pepys Monster 04/25/18 6:40:39 PM #9:	So is this good for MRAs? --- House music owns. <cite>Pepys Monster posted [p:900299410] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote>So is this good for MRAs?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HotMaladorianAI 04/25/18 6:43:34 PM #10:	I feel like the courts/the legal system almost wholly pander to women, not only in custody battles and divorce court but also in terms of relative sentencing, so if this actually happened Id be interested in seeing how it would actually play out in reality. --- I find your lack of faith disturbing <cite>HotMaladorianAI posted [p:900299568] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote>I feel like the courts/the legal system almost wholly pander to women, not only in custody battles and divorce court but also in terms of relative sentencing, so if this actually happened Id be interested in seeing how it would actually play out in reality.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Medussa 04/25/18 6:44:22 PM #11:	neat. --- Boom! That's right, this is all happening! You cannot change the channel now! Act now! Venchmen are standing by for your orders! <cite>Medussa posted [p:900299619] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote>neat.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ThePieReborn 04/25/18 6:45:49 PM #12:	Tyranthraxus posted... s0nicfan posted... Does this... actually add anything that isn't already there? I believe this makes gay marriage a constitutional right since it would be discriminatory to consider the sex of the people being married, as well as power of attorney rights, adoption, etc. I'm sure there's some benefit in it for trans as well. Not groundbreaking, and as it was said several decades late but it puts in protections that are very hard to remove. Yep, this would strengthen those arguments. Not necessarily to the degree that gay marriage is instantly insulated, but it would bolster the arguments used in Windsor and Obergefell to the point that it would be a much smaller jump and much more constitutionally sound. --- Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire! <cite>ThePieReborn posted [p:900299702] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>s0nicfan posted...</cite> <quote>Does this... actually add anything that isn't already there?</quote> I believe this makes gay marriage a constitutional right since it would be discriminatory to consider the sex of the people being married, as well as power of attorney rights, adoption, etc. I'm sure there's some benefit in it for trans as well. Not groundbreaking, and as it was said several decades late but it puts in protections that are very hard to remove.</quote> Yep, this would strengthen those arguments. Not necessarily to the degree that gay marriage is instantly insulated, but it would bolster the arguments used in Windsor and Obergefell to the point that it would be a much smaller jump and much more constitutionally sound.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
_Near_ 04/25/18 6:48:32 PM #13:	ThePieReborn posted... No, it would change equal protection cases in a substantial fashion. Currently sex is not a suspect criteria with regards to equal protection, because the core purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment concerns race and national origin. This amendment would make sex an explicit suspect criteria, and sexual discrimination cases and state actions allegedly discriminating on the basis of sex (for example the leaning towards the mother in custody cases) would be subject to strict scrutiny and require the state provide a compelling state end and the action taken be the least restrictive alternative. It wouldn't be ground shattering, but it would not merely be symbolic. I mean, sex is at a heightened scrutiny as it stands right now. I think pushing it to strict scrutiny could bring some good changes, especially in the workplace. --- https://i.imgur.com/WyFIJkF.gif This is America, where a lying, cheating degenerate can prosper. <cite>_Near_ posted [p:900299833] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote><cite>ThePieReborn posted...</cite> <quote> No, it would change equal protection cases in a substantial fashion. Currently sex is not a suspect criteria with regards to equal protection, because the core purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment concerns race and national origin. This amendment would make sex an explicit suspect criteria, and sexual discrimination cases and state actions allegedly discriminating on the basis of sex (for example the leaning towards the mother in custody cases) would be subject to strict scrutiny and require the state provide a compelling state end and the action taken be the least restrictive alternative. It wouldn't be ground shattering, but it would not merely be symbolic.</quote> I mean, sex is at a heightened scrutiny as it stands right now. I think pushing it to strict scrutiny could bring some good changes, especially in the workplace.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Garioshi 04/25/18 6:49:51 PM #14:	The fuck? The Equal Rights Amendment is still a thing? --- <cite>Garioshi posted [p:900299898] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote>The fuck? The Equal Rights Amendment is still a thing?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SomeonesAlt 04/25/18 6:54:21 PM #15:	Garioshi posted... The fuck? The Equal Rights Amendment is still a thing? From what I've read, Illinois choosing to suddenly ratify it after all this time is a tongue in cheek jab at the Trump administration --- But Whose? <cite>SomeonesAlt posted [p:900300124] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote><cite>Garioshi posted...</cite> <quote>The fuck? The Equal Rights Amendment is still a thing?</quote> From what I've read, Illinois choosing to suddenly ratify it after all this time is a tongue in cheek jab at the Trump administration</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kazi1212 04/25/18 7:11:59 PM #16:	Will men be treated more fairly in divorce proceedings? --- I don't know my gimmick "Does that sound reasonable to you?" <cite>Kazi1212 posted [p:900300956] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote>Will men be treated more fairly in divorce proceedings?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 04/25/18 7:13:13 PM #17:	s0nicfan posted... Does this... actually add anything that isn't already there? A gigantic shitstorm with Selective Service, very quickly. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:900301003] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote><cite>s0nicfan posted...</cite> <quote>Does this... actually add anything that isn't already there?</quote> A gigantic shitstorm with Selective Service, very quickly.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 04/25/18 7:15:12 PM #18:	Garioshi posted... The fuck? The Equal Rights Amendment is still a thing? The 27th amendment took slightly less than 203 years to ratify. This is nothing new. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:900301104] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote><cite>Garioshi posted...</cite> <quote>The fuck? The Equal Rights Amendment is still a thing?</quote> The 27th amendment took slightly less than 203 years to ratify. This is nothing new.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ThePieReborn 04/25/18 7:39:38 PM #19:	Questionmarktarius posted... s0nicfan posted... Does this... actually add anything that isn't already there? A gigantic shitstorm with Selective Service, very quickly. Mmm. It would provide fuel, but I'm not sure it would ignite. The Court has historically given extreme deference to Congress's powers with regards to national security/raising armies. --- Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire! <cite>ThePieReborn posted [p:900302395] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>s0nicfan posted...</cite> <quote>Does this... actually add anything that isn't already there?</quote> A gigantic shitstorm with Selective Service, very quickly.</quote> Mmm. It would provide fuel, but I'm not sure it would ignite. The Court has historically given extreme deference to Congress's powers with regards to national security/raising armies.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 04/25/18 7:45:50 PM #20:	ThePieReborn posted... Questionmarktarius posted... s0nicfan posted... Does this... actually add anything that isn't already there? A gigantic shitstorm with Selective Service, very quickly. Mmm. It would provide fuel, but I'm not sure it would ignite. The Court has historically given extreme deference to Congress's powers with regards to national security/raising armies. The ERA would utterly screw up a male-only draft, either immediately or soon. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:900302731] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote><cite>ThePieReborn posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>s0nicfan posted...</cite> <quote>Does this... actually add anything that isn't already there?</quote> A gigantic shitstorm with Selective Service, very quickly.</quote> Mmm. It would provide fuel, but I'm not sure it would ignite. The Court has historically given extreme deference to Congress's powers with regards to national security/raising armies.</quote> The ERA would utterly screw up a male-only draft, either immediately or soon.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Medussa 04/25/18 7:47:31 PM #21:	Questionmarktarius posted... The ERA would utterly screw up a male-only draft, either immediately or soon. yeah, but it could probably be ignored until such a draft is called. which, doesn't seem necessary any time soon. --- Boom! That's right, this is all happening! You cannot change the channel now! Act now! Venchmen are standing by for your orders! <cite>Medussa posted [p:900302814] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote>The ERA would utterly screw up a male-only draft, either immediately or soon.</quote> yeah, but it could probably be ignored until such a draft is called. which, doesn't seem necessary any time soon.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 04/25/18 7:49:11 PM #22:	Medussa posted... Questionmarktarius posted... The ERA would utterly screw up a male-only draft, either immediately or soon. yeah, but it could probably be ignored until such a draft is called. which, doesn't seem necessary any time soon. Selective Service registration itself would shit the bed, unless it became genderless. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:900302894] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote><cite>Medussa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote>The ERA would utterly screw up a male-only draft, either immediately or soon.</quote> yeah, but it could probably be ignored until such a draft is called. which, doesn't seem necessary any time soon.</quote> Selective Service registration itself would shit the bed, unless it became genderless.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Medussa 04/25/18 7:51:26 PM #23:	that's fair. and it probably would, banking on saying "this is a last-case scenario" and justifying it with 50 years of no draft being implemented. but i have no issues with it just going away altogether. --- Boom! That's right, this is all happening! You cannot change the channel now! Act now! Venchmen are standing by for your orders! <cite>Medussa posted [p:900302999] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote>that's fair. and it probably would, banking on saying "this is a last-case scenario" and justifying it with 50 years of no draft being implemented. but i have no issues with it just going away altogether.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Medz1286 04/25/18 7:52:01 PM #24:	call 911! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc90wu7veBg" data-time=" --- Hi <cite>Medz1286 posted [p:900303038] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote>call 911! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc90wu7veBg" data-time="</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Garioshi 04/25/18 9:25:22 PM #25:	Questionmarktarius posted... Garioshi posted... The fuck? The Equal Rights Amendment is still a thing? The 27th amendment took slightly less than 203 years to ratify. This is nothing new. The FUCK? --- <cite>Garioshi posted [p:900307942] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Garioshi posted...</cite> <quote>The fuck? The Equal Rights Amendment is still a thing?</quote> The 27th amendment took slightly less than 203 years to ratify. This is nothing new.</quote> The FUCK?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Damn_Underscore 04/25/18 10:32:25 PM #26:	bump --- Shenmue II = best game of all time Shenmue = 2nd best game of all time <cite>Damn_Underscore posted [p:900311882] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote>bump</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nomadic View 04/25/18 10:36:32 PM #27:	The 14th already covers this. Sure, go for it I guess. Its kinda redundant though. --- {}\\{}(o){}\\//{}//=\\{})){}(< \\//{}{{-{}//\\{} {}xxxxxxxx{};;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;> <cite>Nomadic View posted [p:900312101] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote>The 14th already covers this. Sure, go for it I guess. Its kinda redundant though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ThePieReborn 04/25/18 11:24:50 PM #28:	Nomadic View posted... The 14th already covers this. Sure, go for it I guess. Its kinda redundant though. It covers it insofar as sex is granted weaker protection/examined with lesser scrutiny than racial/national origin discriminatory action. --- Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire! <cite>ThePieReborn posted [p:900314478] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote><cite>Nomadic View posted...</cite> <quote>The 14th already covers this. Sure, go for it I guess. Its kinda redundant though.</quote> It covers it insofar as sex is granted weaker protection/examined with lesser scrutiny than racial/national origin discriminatory action.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DevsBro 04/25/18 11:32:45 PM #29:	Damn_Underscore posted... Well for one thing it would probably totally change divorce court in the US lol --- http://backloggery.com/devsbro/sig.gif http://i.imgur.com/kU5vu5N.png Never pepper popcorn <cite>DevsBro posted [p:900314840] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote>Well for one thing it would probably totally change divorce court in the US</quote> lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Barenziah Boy Toy 04/25/18 11:38:15 PM #30:	s0nicfan posted... Does this... actually add anything that isn't already there? It prevents any future courts from having to interpret the 14th Amendment. --- You don't need a treaty to have free trade. M Rothbard {Self-Hating Token Asian of the Ivory Tower's Zionist Elite} <cite>Barenziah Boy Toy posted [p:900315039] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote><cite>s0nicfan posted...</cite> <quote>Does this... actually add anything that isn't already there?</quote> It prevents any future courts from having to interpret the 14th Amendment.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
_Near_ 04/25/18 11:51:24 PM #31:	Medussa posted... Questionmarktarius posted... The ERA would utterly screw up a male-only draft, either immediately or soon. yeah, but it could probably be ignored until such a draft is called. which, doesn't seem necessary any time soon. Maybe not, since males have to do selected service to get things like financial aid. A case could be made that women are treated differently without a compelling government interest without having a draft in place. Just a thought tho --- https://i.imgur.com/WyFIJkF.gif This is America, where a lying, cheating degenerate can prosper. <cite>_Near_ posted [p:900315561] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote><cite>Medussa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote>The ERA would utterly screw up a male-only draft, either immediately or soon.</quote> yeah, but it could probably be ignored until such a draft is called. which, doesn't seem necessary any time soon.</quote> Maybe not, since males have to do selected service to get things like financial aid. A case could be made that women are treated differently without a compelling government interest without having a draft in place. Just a thought tho</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ElatedVenusaur 04/26/18 12:25:33 AM #32:	I hope it gets ratified, but Congress placed an expiration date(1979) on the original proposal. Is there any resolution to that? <cite>ElatedVenusaur posted [p:900317021] in The Equal ... [t:76551686]...</cite> <quote>I hope it gets ratified, but Congress placed an expiration date(1979) on the original proposal. Is there any resolution to that?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1

Current Events > The Equal Rights Amendment could be ratified soon (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > The Equal Rights Amendment could be ratified soon