Thanks for the Constitutional seminar, gentlemen; I’ve been generally aware of the importance of the Fourteenth Amendment, but this makes my understanding a lot more concrete.
How do people feel about this idea? I must admit I’m bothered by it, for a number of reasons.
First, I think the time limitation on getting an amendment ratified, which seems to have become the norm, is fundamentally a Good Thing. Changing the Constitution is a pretty serious matter, and should be done only if there’s a fairly high level of national agreement on an issue. If different states can ratify an amendment at vastly different times, it implies that this element of consensus is not really that important. That bothers me.
Second, there’s a ‘have it both ways’ sort of attitude inherent in this drive for belated completion of ERA ratification: states can’t rescind their ratifications, but we have no time limit on getting new states to ratify. And while the amendment had a time limit when it passed Congress, we can ignore it if we want to, with the help of some other Congress.
Much as I’m for the ERA, I don’t want to see it passed in some sleazy, cheesy manner; it might come back to haunt me on a flag-burning amendment, or some other such monstrosity. If we want the ERA, let’s start again from scratch, with two-thirds votes of the House and Senate, and approval by thirty-eight states in seven years. If we’re gonna do it, let’s do it right, and not lower the bar for the amendments we’d rather not see in the Constitution.
“Born in diversity and fired by determination, our society was endowed with a flexibility designed to contain the most fractious contentions of an ambitious, individualistic and adventurous breed.” - Sen. Adam Sunraider
There were two threads of argument against the ERA. The “high-minded” was that the 14th Amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act already guaranteed equal rights, and that a specific new amendment wasn’t necessary.
The second was the more inflammatory arguments, ranging from unisex bathrooms to the end of alimony and child support, to women being drafted. We can laugh at these now, but at the time they all required answering. In fact, i don’t think the women and military service question was ever answered.
And if I recall, when the deadline for ratification was extended, several states argued that they should have the right to choose again whether to ratify. Don’t know if it was ever resolved, however.
And how preposterous would the debate get if the ERA were revived? Let’s try a couple of flashpoints – homosexual marriage and gays in the military.
Well, the amendment as originally proposed mentioned sex (in the sense of gender), but not sexual orientation. I think it would be a stretch to include that.
Personally, I don’t care what the flashpoints would be this time. If it passes, great; if not, those who spark the flashpoints will have to stand up and be counted as the backwards idiots they are.
If conservatives can make a big deal about the flag amendment, posting the Ten Commandments, and other non-issues - primarily to smear their opponents, as far as I can tell - then we liberals deserve our opportunity to give conservatives an opportunity to look bad. At least the ERA has more substance than ten flag amendments.