General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Question For The Class: Wouldn't This Be The Perfect Moment To Re-Introduce The ERA ??? [View all]Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You characterize our Constitution as inflexible. In fact, because of the role of judicial interpretation, it's more flexible than might appear from its bare text.
In 1896, the Supreme Court approved "separate but equal" facilities, at a time when racial discrimination was common. By 1954, with society's attitudes changing, the Court overruled itself and outlawed "separate but equal" in state action.
The change with regard to women wasn't that dramatic but it's been evident. When ERA ratification was a live issue, and since then, there've been Supreme Court decisions (like the one I discussed in #26) holding various forms of sex discrimination to be unconstitutional. That's why I question the importance of the ERA today. The sadness about the defeat of the ERA should be tempered by the realization that a great deal of the objective has already been achieved. (The push for the ERA may have had something to do with that. As was observed decades ago -- maybe Finley Peter Dunne? -- "The Soopreme Court follows th'iliction returns."