Feminist Leaders and Activists Rally for the Equal Rights Amendment

[alp227]

Source: MsMagazine.com

This morning, Congresswomen Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Jackie Speier (D-CA) led a solid crowd of Equal Rights Amendment activists and supporters just beyond the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Congressional leaders cited the Supreme Court's rulings in Burwell v.Hobby Lobby and McCullen v. Coakleyas key reasons for calling the rally. "Recent Supreme Court decisions have sent women's rights back to the Stone Age," Rep. Speier said in a release issued on Tuesday. "Justice Scalia reminds us that the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination based on sex and that corporations have more rights than women do," she continued.

Leaders of national gender equality groups addressed the crowd, including Feminist Majority President Eleanor Smeal; Terry O'Neill, President of the National Organization for Women; Dr. E. Faye Williams, Chair of the National Congress of Black Women; Desiree Hoffman, Advocacy Director for the YWCA; and Jessica Neuwirth, Director of the ERA Coalition.

The representatives shared stories of constituents whose experiences reflect the need for a constitutional amendment that explicitly protects against sex-based discrimination, particularly in light of court decisions that leave victims of sexual violence with limited legal recourse.

Read more: http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=15099

---

if it were a tea party rally it'd have gotten some more hype by the mainstream media!

[femmocrat]

1. It could happen!

Only needs one more state, according to that article!

[PoliticAverse]

3. The original proposed ERA amendment expired. It would have to be reintroduced in Congress. n/t

[femmocrat]

5. Not necessarily, according to this site:

Last edited Thu Jul 24, 2014, 10:34 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/faq.htm#q5

It would be up to congress to keep it viable and states that previously ratified it cannot rescind their ratification. Good luck with this congress, but there is cause for optimism.

On edit: It has already been re-introduced. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5287952

[Reter]

19. Yes but it was introduced with an expiration date

We really would look bad if we ignored it, and also if we tell the states that rescinded before the deadline they can't. They can.

[PoliticAverse]

24. Whether a state can rescind its approval is an open constitutional question.

The Supreme Court was scheduled to rule on the matter back in 1982 but deferred declaring
the matter 'moot' as the proposed ERA amendment had expired (NOW v. Idaho (1982)).

[hlthe2b]

2. the 15 states which have NOT ratified the ERA

The ERA in the States



The Equal Rights Amendment was passed by Congress on March 22, 1972 and sent to the states for ratification by both houses of their state legislatures. A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution when approved by three-fourths (38) of the 50 states.

During the next five years, 35 states approved the amendment. By the Congressionally imposed deadline of June 30, 1982, however, no additional states had voted yes, and the ERA fell three states short of ratification.

The 15 states that have not yet ratified the Equal Rights Amendment are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/states.htm

[niyad]

4. does the map surprise any of us? no, sadly, it does not.

[brooklynite]

13. Actually, yes...

Alaska? Texas? Idaho? Kansas?

[niyad]

18. back then, those states were not nearly so full of crazies.

do not forget--houston was the site of the international women's year conference of the UN in 1977 (with coverage, sadly, buried under international events)

[JDPriestly]

8. OK, Illinois, Maryland and Virginia. Stop twiddling your thumbs. We need the ERA, if only to shut

Scalia up.

[hlthe2b]

10. actually, Maryland has already passed. Assuming we have IL and VA, we need one more

Last edited Fri Jul 25, 2014, 01:34 PM - Edit history (1)

and none will be "easy".... North Carolina imo really ought to have been a 'possible' years ago, but who knows now. Nevada, maybe? None of those left are obvious choices for the fight.

edited to correct

[Jim Lane]

11. Per the graphic, New Mexico has also already ratified.

Nevada would probably be a better bet than any of the other states.

[hlthe2b]

12. You are right... 'Looked at it too quickly. edited to correct and yes, NV is probably likeliest....

[former9thward]

14. The time has expired.

It would have to be re-introduced.

[hlthe2b]

15. If you read the actual article it discusses that and states:

Thirty-five states ratified the Equal Rights Amendment by the June 1982 deadline imposed by Congress. Congresswoman Speier has introduced a resolution in the House that would abolish that deadline, and require only three additional states to ratify the amendment before it could become part of the US Constitution. Senators Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) have introduced identical legislation in the US Senate. Earlier this year, the Virginia State Senate and the Illinois State Senate passed measures to ratify the ERA.

Feminist Majority President Eleanor Smeal said she's encouraged by the momentum around the ERA. "In the 2014 Virginia state legislative session, the Senate approved the ERA. In late May of 2014, the Illinois Senate approved the ERA by a 60 percent majority. The Equal Rights Amendment will come up in the veto session of the Illinois House in November, and Illinois could become the 36th state to ratify the ERA," she said. "Moreover, the Equal Rights Amendment will be on the state ballot of Oregon in November 2014. The Oregon measure will amend the state Constitution to include an Equal Rights Amendment with wording similar to the federal ERA that was approved by Congress in 1972," Smeal continued.

[CTyankee]

16. Another argument in favor of the 3 state strategy

An alternative strategy for ERA ratification has arisen from the "Madison Amendment," concerning changes in Congressional pay, which was passed by Congress in 1789 and finally ratified in 1992 as the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. The acceptance of an amendment after a 203-year ratification period has led some ERA supporters to propose that Congress has the power to maintain the legal viability of the ERA's existing 35 state ratifications. The legal analysis for this strategy is outlined in "The Equal Rights Amendment: Why the ERA Remains Legally Viable and Properly Before the States," an article by Allison Held, Sheryl Herndon, and Danielle Stager in the Spring 1997 issue of William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law.

Under this rationale, it is likely that Congress could choose to legislatively adjust or repeal the existing time limit constraint on the ERA, determine whether or not state ratifications after the expiration of a time limit in a proposing clause are valid, and promulgate the ERA after the 38th state ratifies.

The Congressional Research Service analyzed this legal argument in 1996 [4] and concluded that acceptance of the Madison Amendment does have implications for the premise that approval of the ERA by three more states could allow Congress to declare ratification accomplished. As of 2007, ratification bills testing this three-state strategy have been introduced in one or more legislative sessions in eight states (Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Virginia), and supporters are seeking to move such bills in all 15 of the unratified states. [5]

[former9thward]

17. I did read it.

I doubt that it is legal. You can't retroactively change expiration dates. There would be no end to litigation in the 35 states that already had ratified it by the expiration dates. Ex post facto laws are prohibited by the Constitution itself. In addition 5 of the 35 states have rescinded their earlier ratification.

[PoliticAverse]

22. There was a court case as to the validity of the recinds, the case was thrown out

because it was a moot issue as the amendment failed to achieve enough ratifications by
the required date.

Upon consideration of the memorandum for the Administrator of General Services suggesting mootness, filed July 9, 1982, and the responses thereto, the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho is vacated and the cases are remanded to that court with instructions to dismiss the complaints as moot.

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN v. IDAHO ET AL. AND CARMEN January 25, 1982

[PoliticAverse]

20. The 1982 deadline was an extension and may not be constitutionally valid.

The original deadline when the amendment was proposed/passed was March 22, 1979. It failed to achieve
ratification by that date. It's dead.

[hlthe2b]

21. are you a constitutional lawyer?

Seems that the Senate and House have ample access to those who are and who would advise them if this bill is not doable.....?

[PoliticAverse]

23. The Supreme Court has found lots of bills passed by Congress to be unconstitutional.

It is true that there are some people that believe at this date the (already expired) deadline can be extended.
I don't believe even all the 4 justices on the 'liberal wing' of the current court would agree with that.

The Supreme Court already has accepted the idea that the ERA amendment was dead in NOW v. Idaho (1982)
where they rejected arguments on the ratification as being 'moot' as the deadline for ratification had expired.

[niyad]

6. k and r

[UpInArms]

7. stood on street corners in 1980 trying to get signatures

before Ray-gun took office -

knew that he would kill any movement toward equality.

Always wished that reincarnation were real -

that rat bastard would have to come back as a poor old black woman for the world to actually have justice.

[blkmusclmachine]

9. Yeah, the Fascist 5 on the SCOTUS def. are eyeing the ERA. They just need a case, to rule against it

Burqas soon.