U.S. Justice Department Backs Republican Effort to Block Equal Rights Amendment
m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5e1601c4c5b66361cb...Posted Jan 9, 2020, 3:24 PM UTC
528
huffpost.com
[deleted]
12
What else is involved beyond the right amount of states to ratify it?
1
[deleted]
4
What do they have to gain from this, or is it just purely spite/some weird religious justification pushing this?
4
There are good reasons to have ratification deadlines for constitutional amendments. If you do not then you can end up with a situation like the 27th amendment which became part of the constitution almost by accident more than 200 years after it was introduced. That’s really not how you want the system to work.
5
If you do not then you can end up with a situation like the 27th amendment which became part of the constitution almost by accident more than 200 years after it was introduced.
And I'm not sorry in the least that this happened.
2
The story of the 27th Amendment is kind of awesome but only because that amendment dealt with something trivial like congressional pay raises. Making substantive changes to the constitution in that way is not good government.
2
"We are committed to equality, as long as that doesn't include women."
2†
because it makes the pedos feel less powerful???
-3
"The ERA is actually just one sentence: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”
Apparently the argument against it is
"The attorneys general claim that while they are “committed to equality,” passing the ERA would be a bridge too far ― because it would lead to more abortion rights and pave the way for equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, a common argument of equality opponents."
And the response "however, it’s not clear at all that the ERA would lead to those issues, which would have to be voted on or litigated."