Arkansas Blog

"Some idiot, currently using
his left arm to control the
mouse because of an injured
right elbow apparently
inadvertently deleted the
check mark...."

You probably clicked with your left index finger, but your mouse still expects clicks to come from its right side.

I know most newspaper folk use a Mac, but if you use Windows, you can go to Start>Control Panel>Mouse and likely make some improvements.

Different brands and models of "mice" have different settings available, but it's generally possible to map the mouse buttons so the RIGHT button becomes the click button. That way you can use it with your left hand and still use your index finger to make clicks.

Mr. Brantley wrote in the column: "The Republican Religious Right ... is screeching that the ERA would lead to gay marriage and partial-birth abortion. There's no controlling legal precedent to support that. You could just as credibly argue that the ERA would force men to wear skirts. The U.S. Supreme Court isn't going to use the ERA to legislate laws in areas the amendment doesn't mention, certainly not to override specific state limitations on gay marriage and abortion." On the Arkansas Blog, he commented further, "They'll quote out of context long-ago utterances of individuals and mention a minor court ruling or two -- none at the precedent level, such as a state Supreme Court."

Well. To say that the Supreme Court is not going to apply the ERA "in areas the amendment doesn't mention" is downright silly, because the ERA doesn't mention any "areas" at all. Rather, it would add to the federal Constitution an absolute prohibition on any abridgement of rights "on the basis of sex." While Mr. Brantley was lazily parroting the shopworn party line that the ERA does not "mention" abortion, he didn't notice that NARAL sued the state of New Mexico for tax funding of Medicaid abortions, arguing that since only women get abortions, the state policy against funding abortion (which funding other procedures, like prostate operations) violated the state ERA(which contains language very similar to the proposed federal ERA). Briefs in support of this doctrine were filed by the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and the League of Women Voters, among others.

On Nov. 25, 1998, the New Mexico Supreme Court -- that's "Supreme Court," Mr. Brantley -- ruled 5-0 in favor of the doctrine that treating abortion differently violated the ERA, and that the state must fund abortions for Medicaid-eligible women. Of course, the same argument could as easily be applied to partial-birth abortions. Only women seek partial-birth abortions, right? Indeed, the ACLU has already pubished a booklet advising lawyers on how to use state ERAs to attack state laws that require parental notification or parental consent for abortion. Arkansas has such a law -- for now.

If the federal ERA is adopted, of course the U.S. Supreme Court will use it to override state statutes and state constitutional amendments (and acts of Congress, for that matter) that are deemed to be inconsistent with it. That's why some people want to enact it so badly -- it would allow them to obtain by litigation policies that they could never get enacted through the normal democratic processes.

To read the New Mexico Supreme Court ruling and related documentation, visit this page: http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/ERA/index.html

Speaking of idiots, I see that I mistakenly posted this here, in a thread on a technical issue, when I meant to post it under Mr. Brantley's "Hear Them Roar." I have now reposted in the proper thread -- sorry for the mistake.

I supported ERA when it was first passed and routed to the states for ratification.

However, unfortunately, it didn't not achieve ratification within the time set for amendments to the Constitution to be ratified by the the States. Then the supporters decided it was acceptable to change the law to pass the ERA.

I opposed the changing of the law for the time of ratification. If it couldn't be ratified in that amount of time, then insufficient people supported the amendment and it should have died as many other good amendments have and will in the future.

I oppose it now, not because of the content, but because of the the precedents in changing our system of government unnecessarily. I know another amendment was ratified past the deadline. However, it shouldn't have been ratified and the ratification was due to the precedent of changing the rules for ratification of the ERA the first time.

So I am instructing my representatives to oppose ratification. Pass a new ERA and I will support it and support its ratification. The current one has done enough damage to our system. We don't need to assist Shrub any more in overthrowing our form of government and lawmaking.

ARK. BLOG: The congressional pay raise took 203 years to be ratified. There is no set law on ratification. Also, the ERA deadline was extended once. Why could it not be extended again? The women's suffrage amendment was sent to states with no time limit.

"...That's why some people want to enact it so badly -- it would allow them to obtain by litigation policies that they could never get enacted through the normal democratic processes."

Sounds like the 2000 presidential election. (And I sure wasn't thrilled with that outcome.) But my politics aside...I thought the courts were a part of our system of governance. That they were one part of system that ensured balance...that legislators could not pass un-Constitutional legislation (regardless if it's from the left or the right). So what's new and what's wrong with using litigation to achieve democratic goals?

Sure abortion is a part of women's fight for equality; but it's certainly not the Trojan Horse that so many right wingers make it out to be. According to most of the ERA opposition, women want the ERA passed so they can line up for partial-birth abortions on their way to undermining the entire country...hogwash. The equality that most women want has more to do with everyday issues like equal pay for equal work, protection from sexual harassing Neanderthals who only seem to understand concrete boundaries, and assurances that they'll not be penalized for their reproductive role in our society. We want a safe level playing field where our daughters have the same chance to achieve as our sons. And, clearly many men are still not willing to share the fruits of our society equally with their female counterparts. Thus the need for legal protections.

If not for Title IX, many schools would still be allocating the bulk of their athletic money to men's programs; and cheering male athletes on would still be the primary outlet for female athletes.

Then there's the bathroom issue...

The amendment pertaining to congressional pay raises (the "Madison Amendment") had no deadline attached. In contrast, when Congress approved the ERA in 1972, by the required two-thirds vote, it attached a seven-year deadline. Moreover, 26 of the 35 state legislatures that originally ratified the ERA expressly included the deadline in their ratification resolutions. Congress cannot past an ex post facto law that changes the original proposal that the legislatures had before them when they were ratifying, and that did include the deadline.

The only federal court to consider the issue ruled that the purported three-year deadline extension, passed by Congress by simple majority vote in 1979, was unconstitutional. That question then went to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the question was "moot" precisely because the 1972 was DEAD with or without the deadline extension.

Sure, Congress has the right to pass the ERA anew, this time with no deadline, and start the process over again. Then each state legislature can decide anew whether it wants to ratify under the new deal. But of course, the ERA proponents can't pass the same ERA in Congress now, because the gig is up -- too many people now understand how this sweeping language will be used. How such language HAS been used, in litigation based on state ERAs. That's why they're trying this unconstitutional shortcut.

>However, unfortunately, it didn't not achieve ratification within the time set for amendments to the Constitution to be ratified by the the States.<

I just read Article V of our Constitution for the umpteenth time. No mention is made of time limits for ratification of Amendments.

Additionally the time limit for ratification was not included in the original ERA, it was added later.
_

LWood, allow me to address each of your points in reverse order.

On your second point, you are simply mistaken. In 1972 Congress submitted to the 50 state legislatures, by the constitutionally required two-thirds votes, a resolution (House Joint Resolution 208) that contained the seven-year time limit. Moreover, a study by Prof. Jules Gerard of the George Washington University Law School found that of the 35 legislatures that adopted ratification resolutions, 26 explicitly included the time limit in those resolutions. Both in Congress and in some states, some legislators would not have voted for the resolutions without the time limit, because only with a time limit can it be determined whether there is a true consensus to amend the Federal Constitution.

Nevertheless, as to your first point: Nobody is saying that Congress is required to include a time limit when they first submit a resolution to the states. When Congress omits a time limit, the Supreme Court has suggested that Congress will then be the judge of whether "too much" time has passed. But that doesn't mean that Congress can retroactively amend what it submitted to the states. Congress cannot propose one resolution to the legislatures by the required two-thirds vote, have legislatures accept that proposal, and then later pass an ex post facto law that changes the initial proposal -- and certainly not by simple majority votes.

That is why the only federal court to ever consider the issue ruled that the 1979 attempt by Congress to extend the ERA deadline for three years was unconstitutional.

I just assume Mrs. Schlafly sucked up the comment boxes as she invaded our air space. Her views on the ERA should be aired, but I really think an 82 year old woman's view on abortion should be ignored since the danger of them being faced with an unwanted pregnancy is the same as mine.

It took about 200 years to get slavery abolished. It took another 125 years for black men to gain the right to marry their white lovers. America had been a nation for 148 years before women were given the right to vote. Going on 231 years old, gay people are still viewed as second class citizens in the eyes of the law.

So what if it's taken 35 years to declare a woman equal to a man? So what if some Republican put a 7 year limit on it back in 72. So what if jerks try to tie the ERA to gay marriage, genital warts or bed wetting? One doesn't have to be Einstein to see what they're game is all about. It's the MONEY.

The rich white Republican owners of Big Business don't want to pay a penny more to get their product out. America is currently being crippled by sending our manufacturing jobs to 3rd world countries. This exodus is profits them and hurts America. They don't worry, we'll still be buying their junk when everyone becomes a Walmart associate. They know they are shooting fish in a barrel.

These same lumpy white men are not about to pay a woman equal to a man, so they throw in the gay marriage boogie man, the abortion thing that upsets them so unless it's their daughter whose preggers. Notice Ford isn't going out of business...they're just closing American plants and building new ones in Mexico. It's about the MONEY. Mrs. Schlafly is just about the MONEY.

Good work Mr. Johnson, but no sale.

The Equal Rights Amendment does not concern gender preferences nor sexual orientation. The Equal Rights Amendment says only that "equality of rights under the law shall not be denied because of sex". In this regard, sex means gender, just as it does in the 19th Amendment (which gave women the right to vote). Sexual orientation and sexual preferences do not fall under either the meaning nor the intent of the ERA.

In a 1974 decision, Singer v Hara, the Supreme Court in Washington state rejected the arguments by same sex couples that their state ERA granted same sex marriage. Recently, in same sex marriage cases in Massachusetts(2003) and in Washington (2006), both state Supreme Courts rejected claims by gay marriage attorneys that their state ERA supported same sex marriage.

Allow me to address each of your points, Mr Johnson:

"On your second point, you are simply mistaken. In 1972 Congress submitted to the 50 state legislatures, by the constitutionally required two-thirds votes, a resolution (House Joint Resolution 208) that contained the seven-year time limit."

The original ERA was filed in 1928.

"When Congress omits a time limit, the Supreme Court has suggested.."

But SCOTUS has not RULED. Big Difference.
_

Mr. Johnson.....you have basically stated in your many, previous posts that in essence, ratification of the ERA is moot. It is pretty much a dead issue and irregardless of what happens in the Legislature today, as far as your posts indicate, it isn't going anywhere. So, my question to you is this; Why are you here strutting your moral and intellectual superiority for us to behold? If it is a dead issue why is Ms. Schlafly here to strut her opposition to equality? Why are all the religiofacists here to condemn women's equality?

It's a dead issue, according to you, isn't it until Congress submits another amendment?

SO.....whatcha doing here?

Mr. Smith,

I have replicated your question, and given my answer, on the later thread, "ERA Fails," here:
http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2007/02/era_fails.aspx#comments

Douglas Johnson