E.R.A. “Three State Strategy” - 4ERA

[groovychk]

Originally published at Twixel.net. You can comment here or there.

4ERA
The Equal Rights Amendment, passed by Congress in 1972, would have
become the 27th Amendment to the Constitution if three-fourths of the
states had ratified it by June 30, 1982. However, that date passed with
only 35 of the necessary 38 state ratifications. Instead, the 27th Amendment
is the “Madison Amendment,” concerning Congressional pay raises, which
went to the states for ratification in 1789 and reached the three-fourths
goal in 1992.
The fact that a 203-year ratification period was accepted as valid
has led ERA supporters to propose that Congress has the power to maintain
the legal viability of the ERA and the existing 35 state ratifications.
If so, only three more state ratifications would be needed to make the
ERA part of the Constitution. Legal analysis supporting this strategy
was developed in 1995 by Allison Held, Sheryl Herndon and Danielle Stager,
then third-year law students at the T. C. Williams School of Law in Richmond,
VA. Their article was published in the Spring 1997 issue of William &
Mary Journal of Women and the Law.
LEGAL RATIONALE
Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to propose
an amendment and to determine the mode of ratification, but it is silent
as to the power of Congress to impose time limits or its role after ratification
by three-fourths of the states.

—

Very interesting indeed. Certainly a lot better (and cheaper) than starting over.

Comments

This is not opening a door, it is closing one.

[hottestnerd.livejournal.com]

The sad fact of the state of our nation is that there are political groups who are currently removing liberties from our population. These liberties are taken away under the pretext that it protects us from terrorism. The real terror is the idea that we could lose our rights and liberties as Americans, and then we would have lost America.

Leaving this gaping whole in the constitution enables malicious people to further remove rights that have only been unofficially granted. It seems to me that someone as "enlightened" as Deviant here would certainly be arguing in a different fashion if he were on the other side of this issue. That is just my opinion from a quick "actor's evaluation."

Our government has certainly spent plenty of its time and money to iron less worthy issues. For instance, the longest roll-call in the history of the congress involved a bill that would prohibit Medicare from bargaining with pharmaceutical companies over prices of drugs for medicare users. (it passed by the way, allowing these companies to charge whatever outrageous price they choose for drugs, while other similar programs like the veteran's association bargains with these companies and in some cases pays less than one tenth what a medicare program would pay). Or a recent bill that was passed through the house to remove eight grade diplomas from schools, arguing that kids were so dumb that they thought it was a real degree. I am certain that if these issues get time and money invested in them, we owe it to the female population, and to everyone to at least give this amendment a chance. Thirty-five of fifty states seem to agree with me.

Deviantgm, you are just trying to argue here, It seems obvious to me that you do not even believe what you are saying. Who are you trying to kid here? You are working up a false paranoia just to be a unique little snow flake. The second you give up your place as an individual in that constitution, I just might give two shits about your weak argument. Are you willing to do that?