No, they wouldn’t. That’s because of the present constitution. With bicamerality & federalism you have four different levels of legislator, each with multi-year terms, each senior to the one below it. It takes a very long time for the legislature to change, even if it’s “catching up to the people;” and it also takes a long time for the people who vote the lawmakers in to catch up to the thinking of those who know what’s going on. And then conservatives are trying to keep the people from getting up to speed on things, too, & to prevent change–that’s one definition of conservatism. But with a single “House of Commons” chamber for the whole country, we could go down one path until it clearly failed, & then take another. In the USA we keep chasing solutions that don’t work, claiming that somehow it was the other guys’ fault; there’s always a buck to pass.
I am entirely for equal rights. I don’t know that the 14th amendment doesn’t cover it.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
To me, that seems that all citizens, whether male, female (or somewhere between), black, white, red, yellow, green (or some combination thereof) have equal protections, and rights, in the United States.
What you’re talking about isn’t an Equal Rights amendment, it’s a Non-discrimination amendment, correct? It’s not that I disagree with you in principle, it’s that I think you should call a spade a spade.
Being ever the skeptic, and somewhat of an oppositional ass: How do you deal with those inherent biological difference?
Do men & women both get parental leave, or do they have to choose which one gets leave (personally, I think both should…)? That’s not the only difference, but it’s the only one I can think of that would raise any reasonable objection. Ones like “weak women” I think are probably on the wrong side of borderline – things like more stringent restrictions on female employment in things like coal mining, mill work, etc, because of potentially harmful chemicals that are likely to cause major birth defects in the fetus of women who currently, or have in the past, worked in those facilities.
OK, simple example: Maternity leave. Many employers have some sort of policy for maternity leave, ranging from full paid time off, to unpaid time off, but guaranteeing that your job will be available when you get back. Should those employers also be required to offer paternity leave, under the same terms? Does it matter if the father in question is still involved in the relationship? No matter what policy you propose, I can point out cases where it can’t be applied equally, and that one gender ends up with rights unavailable to the other.
There are other examples, too, but that’s perhaps best saved for another thread.
Many companies provide for paternity leave under the same terms as maternity leave. No big deal. No big problem.
Where is the actual problem with a non-discrimination requirement? Actual inability to perform certain tasks is a standard that’s not affected by it.
But that’s a social issue. You said biological. Biologically, a woman is able to go back to work a few days after a normal pregnancy/birth (and trust me, I’ve known some who have.) In a different cultural environment, it might be perfectly normal for the woman to do so and the man to take care of the children. Also, I don’t think this level of detail would be worked out in a constitutional amendment.
You would think so, but look at Section 2 of the very same amendment:
This section sees a situation where a state may deny the right to vote to people based on race, but simply reduces its representation in Congress because of it. (And it implicitly allows a denial of suffrage based on sex without any penalty)
So, since what we believe they were saying in Section 1 does not equal what was said in Section 2, something is wrong with our “equal protection” analysis to take it to mean full equality in everything.
Under the Family Medical Leave Act, fathers are entitled to the same amount of parental leave as mothers with full job protection (for all eligible employees working for employers covered by the Act). That is, up to 12 weeks of unpaid protected leave in a 12-month period. This is for biological children, adopted children or foster children.
If both parents work for the same employer, they have to share the 12 weeks.
Section 2 is specifically about the right to vote, though, correct?
Section 1 doesn’t specify voting, it seems to be non-specific, both in gender and in rights. Wouldn’t it make more sense, then, to amend the constitution to take out “male” and put in “anyone” in that part of the 14th amendment (just as we amended the constitution to remove the amendment banning alcohol), rather than come up with an entirely new amendment?
The Spanish Constitution doesn’t list sexual orientation among the discriminatory practices that are banned, but get this: Spanish law starts by not using the concept of “protected class”. The Constitutional Court ruled that, based on existing custom and practice, the discriminatory practices listed in the Spanish Constitution are examples and not a limitinig list. Thus, there was no need to redo the Consti in order to allow same-gender marriage.
Sometimes the biggest key points about a legal system aren’t written down: the US views the list of “stuff you can’t use to discriminate” as a limiting list, other countries don’t, but for Spain this was in place long before the CC’s ruling. In the US, the change could take the form of a Constitutional Amendment to widen the list or of a change in how the laws are read; of course, this is even less likely to happen (way too many interests hang on being able to discriminate for anything not in the list).
Unarguably? The concept of a “free speech zone” is alien to the British, who can quite literally walk up to the PM or any other member of Parliament and tell him how they feel when he/she is out on the streets. Which is the greater infringement: the infringement of the right to legitimate political protest, or the infringement of the “right” to call for mass genocide? I think most British would see the former as the greater infringement and the latter as a legitimate curtailment of freedom of speech.
Yes? What sets out the role of Prime Minister and other offices of state, and their relationship with the courts and monarch, if not a constitution?
No, my point was that today we take section 1 and its equal protection and due process clauses to mean almost anything. Abortion, sodomy, some say gay marriage, no single sex schools, basically ANYTHING which might be to the detriment of one group over another group. Protected classes especially have strict scrutiny.
So, is this type of analysis right?
Well, as I posted, we move on to Section 2 where the authors wrote without regard to section 1 about how a state could deny the right to vote for some adult males (read African-American males) and implicitly could deny the vote to all women.
I know that this only deals with voting, but isn’t it in direct contrast to our current jurisprudence on Section 1? Wouldn’t a law that says only white males above age 21 can vote be a denial of equal protection, due process, and privileges or immunities?
Apparently the authors of the amendment didn’t think so or else they wouldn’t have put Section 1 and 2 together.
And yet, now, amendments 1 through 10 are understood to apply to black people, despite the fact that when they were written slaves were owned and 1-10 weren’t understood to apply to slaves at all.
Because of an Amendment, the entire constitution has been changed in scope. Would the same thing not apply here?
Really? Which specific rights do you feel one gender should have but be denied to the other? I’m curious to know.
I think it’s disingenuous to compare a government that has operated under one system for 221 years to the biology of an entire planet going back some 3.8 billion years.
If you can change it with a simple act of Parliament, it’s hardly a constitution, at least not in the way such a thing is understood in the US. It is not a higher law.
(Also, doesn’t the queen retain the right to dissolve Parliament?)
Britain has had a Bill of Rights since 1689.
If we were still clinging to the original document you might have a point. But in reality, we stuck with the original text for only four years.
The only argument I can see where it’s a bad thing that the United States has the oldest constitution is that a lot of nations that would have benefited from a good constitution before 1787.
But not one legally set above and beyond the reach of the ordinary political/legislative process. That’s the difference.
Well, yes, that’s the problem. The US idea of a constitution doesn’t define the word for everybody else. A constitution just outlines how a government is constituted. If you want to place extra restrictions on how this is modified, then that’s up to you, but it doesn’t change the fact that the UK has a constitution.
Further, it’s simply disingenuous (and potentially incorrect) to state that the constitution of the UK can be “merely changed by an ordinary act of Parliament” when significant parts of the constitution have remained stable for hundreds of years longer than your country has existed. In addition, you’re potentially wrong that constitutional acts can just be changed on a whim, for two reasons: (1) The 2002 Thoburn case made it clear that in the opinion of the High Court, some Acts of Parliament (Constitutional Acts) are more equal than others, including the Magna Carta, Human Rights Act, Act of Settlement, etc. etc. What becomes of the Thoburn ruling, remains to be seen (which, being fair, was non-binding and quite controversial in legal circles). (2) Integration with the EU now means it’s unlikely that an Act of Parliament is enough to modify several European related Acts which now form part of our constitution.
On the advice of the Prime Minister, yes, in accordance with the constitution. But what’s the relevance?