Opinion | It’s time to finally pass the Equal Rights Amendment

  • 📰 washingtonpost
  • ⏱ Reading Time:
  • 1 sec. here
  • 2 min. at publisher
  • 📊 Quality Score:
  • News: 4%
  • Publisher: 72%

Law Law Headlines News

Law Law Latest News,Law Law Headlines

Lisa Murkowski and Ben Cardin write in Opinions: 'It’s time to finally pass the Equal Rights Amendment'

 

Thank you for your comment. Your comment will be published after being reviewed.
Please try again later.

Shouldn't men have equal rights to.... as in custody preferences and such?

And the fact that the deadline to pass has come and gone....?

I would appreciate hearing about some real world examples that this amendment would affect. Maybe interview some women who were discriminated against, and were unable to get relief via other civil rights laws?

I think we need to be focusing on recognizing the unborn as a person.

good for you Lisa

Do it!!

Murkexit

It’s called the Fourteenth Amendment. Next.

One more word, from the Washington Post Editorial Board: 'But extending the [ERA] deadline is, in our view, a bad idea. It smacks of . . expedient rules-changing. . .' Washington Post editorial, June 14, 1978

What Congress proposed to the states in 1972 was a single resolution, H.J. Res. 208, containing both the deadline and amendment text. Of the 35 states that ratified, 24 explicitly referred to the deadline. (1/5)

The U.S. Supreme Court itself recognized that the ERA was dead in 1982, declaring all of the legal issues surrounding its ratification (rescissions, purported deadline extension) moot. (2/5)

The ratification of the Congressional Pay Amendment (27th Amendment) in 1992 is not relevant, since Congress attached no deadline when it submitted that amendment to the states in 1789, nor did any state ever rescind ratification. (3/5)

U.S. Supreme Court said Congress may set a deadline so that 'a definite period for ratification shall be fixed, so that all may know what it is and speculation on what is a reasonable time may be avoided' (Dillon v. Gloss, 1921) = incompatible with retroactive changes. (4/5)

Constitution allows Congress to propose amt by 2/3, but Congress after that lacks power over the ratification process, or to determine ratification.. See Nov. 2, 1992 opinion by Asst. Atty General for Legal Counsel, quoting Prof. Walter Dellinger and others. (5/5)

Pass it for what? What would it do?

HELP! I DON'T KNOW WHAT RETWEET MEANS. marywhitmorehotmail.com

Yes, yes, yes!

We have summarized this news so that you can read it quickly. If you are interested in the news, you can read the full text here. Read more:

 /  🏆 95. in LAW

Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines

Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.

Opinion | Where the fight for abortion rights will take place nextIt’s a challenge that abortion-rights supporters should and are beginning to embrace. I wish I was aborted Look they are all dress in pink. Guess that's the color for murder Abortion is horrible. Vote Democrat for easier access to condoms and contraception.
Source: washingtonpost - 🏆 95. / 72 Read more »

Wilbur Ross, Lara Trump are so out of touch, it's embarrassing: Today's talkerOpinion: 'It is time for President Donald Trump and his advisers to stop playing political games with the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Americans and open the government immediately,' Zach Moller writes. His whole admin of billionaires is out of touch with the struggles of us common folk. Agreed! Pass the clean bills and have the debate about a wall not at the expense of Americans He doesn’t Care
Source: USATODAY - 🏆 100. / 63 Read more »