When people violate a law, why do “some” people think the solution is another law?
1 Like
What does your question have to do with my comment?
Its a interesting legal question.
I think the ERA passage will have little effect these days. HOWEVER -as was pointed out to me, prob should pass. Yes - the 14th amendment covers women -but without the ERA - its a law that could be changed vs a RIGHT.
Here is a example - The 15th Amendment “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude”. Why is that needed if there is the 14th?
Women were still now allowed to vote until the 19th amendment passed.
So dispute the 14th promising everyone born or naturalized in the US to have the benefits and privileges of being a citizen, it was still legal to not apply those rights and privileges based on race and sex.
So the fact that there are equal rights for all regardless of sex and gender is based on laws, not constitutional rights (Minus the right to vote). A amendment on the ERA would give greater protection that those rights could never be revoked.
Having said that - There is no Amendment for Race right now. Civil rights act of 1964 could, in essence, be removed. Just as laws like the Equal Credit Opportunity Act could be revoked (Remember -it wasn’t until the 60’s that women could have a bank account and until the 70’s that all banks allowed them to have a account without husband approving)
So again - Women, as well as minorities, have equal rights based on laws, not the constitution. A ERA would make it stronger.
Having said all that -I think Pro -ERA people are in a catch 22. If the expiration date is legal, you have to start over. If its NOT legal, then you also have to accept the 5 states (Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, and South Dakota) that revoked their ratification.
So either way -you need more then VA.
That is a odd argument.
Where in the 14th does it say *If someone makes a choice i dont like then this amendment does not apply"
Can you extend that? “You are a citizen, but you like the Cleveland browns, that is a choice so you don’t get the same rights”
Def one of the strangest arguments ive seen - that a personal choice you make means you lose a constitutional right.
2 Likes
Everything.
What?
The 14th Amendment is the Constitution.
tc
Only in the eyes of someone who cannot distinguish between the Constitution and enacted laws. Enjoy your weekend.
1 Like
The Constitution is the enacted supreme law of the land.
Press the issue? The GOP wouldn’t have to press the issue. The first time someone tried to claim that the amendment had passed, someone would contest this in court.
The Supreme Court would press the issue.
The only real issue is why the Democrats in Virginia are pretending to vote on an old proposed amendment that expired long ago.
It surely wouldn’t be political pandering to their base even though they knew there was no legal effect, would it?
That’s my reaction, too.
1 Like
The ERA proponents can always start the process again from square one…passage in congress and state ratification.
What can I say? Read it some time; the concept of supremacy never enters into it.
Article VI paragraph 2
Not even close. The Constitution is a rule book for how laws are established, but not laws per se.
The reason I wished you a good weekend last night is that I could see where this was headed. Having established a fallaicious position you are prepared to respond ad infinitum rather than concede an obvious point.
So I will wash my hands of this one… anyone who cares about the Constitution knows or or can read it and can judge for themselves who is correct.
Again have a good weekend tovarich.
Article VI paragraph 2
“Congress shall pass no law…” is not a law?
Or a con con.
