Equal Rights Amendment Still Out There

Image

I’ve written about how it’s massively ridiculous that our Constitution (hallowed be its name) to this day does not guaranty rights for vaginas and their owners. The history is interesting because it was first introduced in Congress in 1923, 3 years after women got the right to vote. It was brought up and tabled every year in Congress from 1923-1970! The time just wasn’t ever right to add women to the protections of the Constitution. Women were too busy keeping everything together so that Men could concentrate on blowing it all up.

The 1970s effort to fix this travesty via the Equal Rights Amendment seemed like a no-brainer, except for the people with no-brains who declared it the work of the devil and communists. They claimed equal rights would force all women to serve in the military, become lesbian witches and wear white after Labor Day. And that profound argument killed the ERA 40 years ago.

The senate approved the ERA on March 22, 1972 with an artificial deadline imposed of 7 years for it to be ratified by 3/4 of the states (38 of 50). 35 states ratified the ERA before the deadline in 1982 (it had been extended once), 3 states short of ratification.

So I’ve been wondering what ever happened to that effort? How does the just effort to bring 51% of the population up to the level of the 49% just disappear forever, like POGS?

Apparently on the down low there are some legislators working on this. Sens. Menendez (NJ) and Kirk (IL) have sponsored S.J. Res. 10

‘Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

‘Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

‘Section 3. This article shall take effect 2 years after the date of ratification.’

In our Congress (aka House of Vampires), Carolyn Maloney (NY) has proposed H.J. Res. 56 that mirrors the Senate proposal.

They’ve also proposed that, because there is no actual time limit set in the Constitution for ratification of amendments, that the original 35 states that ratified be counted. So only 3 more states would need to ratify.

But really in 2013, would any state not ratify? Seriously, even Mississippi, I think, would have to give it up for women.  Mississippi women could always use the Lysistrata strategy if necessary. That would get me to vote for anything.

Image

Besides the justice it would represent to have this “oversight” finally rectified, I believe that getting an amendment to the Constitution done would be salutary to the nation’s political awareness of our ability to do so. Then we would have a better chance of passing other further necessary amendments like the amendment to reverse Citizen’s United.

Section 1. [Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional Rights]

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2. [Money is Not Free Speech]

Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s