Do you support the 28th Amendment, the "Equal Rights Amendment" ? (Poll)

[Winston]

No. it’d sound nonsensical.

Seriously?

In the mid-1970s, the Equal Rights Amendment appeared headed for passage, just a few states short of the 38 ratifications it needed. The constitutional amendment guaranteed 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."

But supporters weren't ready for Phyllis Schlafly, the conservative activist who successfully mobilized against the ERA by warning that it would lead to the military drafting women and the proliferation of public unisex bathrooms. Then, as now, scaring people about what could happen behind closed stall doors proved to be very effective, as even ERA supporters admitted.

Bathroom Panic Has Long Stood In The Way Of Equal Rights

The women's movement and now the LGBT movement have run up against restroom fears.

www.huffpost.com

 

[Winston]

There is no argument. It was not ratified in the proscribed time. End of story.

Where, in the Constitution, is there a time limit or where does it give Congress the authority to establish one?

 

[Catman51]

Where, in the Constitution, is there a time limit or where does it give Congress the authority to establish one?

The courts, who rule on its legality, assigned one, as is their job.

 

[Winston]

The courts, who rule on its legality, assigned one, as is their job.

Dillion v. Gloss, 1921, does not apply here.

 

[Catman51]

Dillion v. Gloss, 1921, does not apply here.

Are YOU in the legal profession? The judges who made the ruling certainly were. Try again.

 

[JoeB131]

The original legislation called for it to be ratified by 1983, which it was not.

So, it can't be added to the constitution.

Now, being old enough to remember the original debate, the two arguments made against it were

Separate restrooms would be unconstitutional
and
Women could be drafted and sent into combat.

The latter is a moot point, since women are already being sent into combat, and they are never going to bring back the draft.

The former point is becoming moot as well, as companies adopt inclusive bathroom policies.

All that said, there was no real reason to pass an ERA, because there's nothing in the constitution that says the genders are unequal.

It's addressing a problem that doesn't exist. .

 

[Rogue AI]

Where, in the Constitution, is there a time limit or where does it give Congress the authority to establish one?

Because it is not in the Constitution those proposing an amendment can create a timeframe. If each proposal were in perpetuity it would specify that in the Constitution.

 

[whitehall]

A simple question to a complicated issue that Biden probably doesn't understand? The safe answer is "no".

 

[kyzr]

So there are three arguments against ratification:
1. The courts said its dead
2. The courts said its dead
3. Joe Biden is always wrong.

 

[DGS49]

There is NOTHING that a man can do legally that a woman cannot. There are two possibilities if this silly Amendment were to be ratified, (a) it could be functionally meaningless, OR (b) some jag-off lawyer will figure out a way to twist the Amendment to mean something preposterous that it was never intended to mean, thus creating chaos for no good purpose.

Conclusion: It is dead; let it be.

 

[Rawley]

There is NOTHING that a man can do legally that a woman cannot. There are two possibilities if this silly Amendment were to be ratified, (a) it could be functionally meaningless, OR (b) some jag-off lawyer will figure out a way to twist the Amendment to mean something preposterous that it was never intended to mean, thus creating chaos for no good purpose.

Conclusion: It is dead; let it be.

Supporters think this would overrule the Dobbs decision.

 

[OKTexas]

As Biden heads out the WH door he makes a statement that the 28th Amendment is ratified. This will be a legal battle.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/17/politics/joe-biden-equal-right-amendment/index.html

Biden says Equal Rights Amendment is ratified, kicking off expected legal battle as he pushes through final executive actions​

“He is using his power of the presidency to make it clear that he believes – and he agrees with leading constitutional scholars and the American Bar Association – not that it should be, but it is the 28th Amendment of the Constitution,” the official added.
But legal experts contend it isn’t that simple: Ratification deadlines lapsed and five states have rescinded their approval, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s law school, prompting questions about the president’s authority to ratify the amendment more than 50 years after it first passed.
Biden is leaning on the American Bar Association’s opinion, the senior Biden official said, which “stresses that no time limit was included in the text of the Equal Rights Amendment” and “stresses that the Constitution’s framers wisely avoided the chaos that would have resulted if states were able to take back the ratifying votes at any time.”

My opinion is that Trump needs to evaluate what happens if the 28th is ratified. Does it make any difference in 2024? Will it hurt business?

The ERA Solidifies Women’s Rights in the Constitution as the 28th Amendment

The federal government has finally recognized the Equal Rights Amendment as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ushering in a whole new era for gender parity in this country.

www.americanprogress.org

Much ado about nothing? Or, will it open the flood gates to frivolous lawsuits?

I oppose and support it as much as I do unicorns, they don't exist either.

.

 

[JoeB131]

There is NOTHING that a man can do legally that a woman cannot. There are two possibilities if this silly Amendment were to be ratified, (a) it could be functionally meaningless, OR (b) some jag-off lawyer will figure out a way to twist the Amendment to mean something preposterous that it was never intended to mean, thus creating chaos for no good purpose.

Conclusion: It is dead; let it be.

Or, you just let it get added to the constitution, and deal with the legal ramifications, none of which are a big deal.

Since all the arguments against it in the 1970's have been rendered largely moot anyway, might as well let it go forward.

 

[JoeB131]

Supporters think this would overrule the Dobbs decision.

Possibly. Since Dobbs is a terrible decision, this would be a good thing.

 

[Rawley]

Possibly. Since Dobbs is a terrible decision, this would be a good thing.

More would say Roe was the terrible decision.

 

[Catman51]

Supporters think this would overrule the Dobbs decision.

Those "supporters" are wrong and live in fantasy land. They don't even grasp what the SCOTUS decision does, they just want to rant against it.

 

[JoeB131]

More would say Roe was the terrible decision.

Only if they are complete fucking idiots.

Oh, wait, Trump supporters.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Only if they are complete fucking idiots.

Oh, wait, Trump supporters.

How long and how many congresses passed since Roe was made the law for democrats to make it official? They chose not to and now it is up to the States.

 

[Rawley]

Only if they are complete fucking idiots.

Oh, wait, Trump supporters.

Calling RBG a fucking idiot? Bold move for a progressive. Kudos.

 

[JoeB131]

How long and how many congresses passed since Roe was made the law for democrats to make it official? They chose not to and now it is up to the States.

Why would they need to?

Calling RBG a fucking idiot? Bold move for a progressive. Kudos.

RBG voted to affirm Roe every time it came up. It was only after she died and got replaced by Serena Joy that we got the crazy that is Dobbs.