Summary:
Following a recent election, Virginia’s state legislature is now under Democratic control. It is speculated that Virginia will now become the 38th state to ratify the ERA. The ERA was first proposed nearly a hundred years ago, and Congress passed the amendment in 1972. However, only 35 of 38 state legislatures needed had ratified the amendment by the 1982 deadline set by Congress. However, more state legislatures have recently begun to ratify the amendment. In 2017, Nevada became the 36th state, and in 2018, Illinois became the 37th state. The ERA originally failed in the Virginia Senate by one vote, so the new Democratic state legislature has decided to reintroduce the ratification of the amendment when the legislature convenes in January. However, even with the 38 states needed to ratify the amendment, it is unknown whether or not the original 1982 deadline will be repealed by Congress. Regardless, there will still be a long legal battle to pass the ERA. States like Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Tennessee have rescinded their ratifications, but based on legal precedent, original ratifications have still be counted in the past. Experts expect that a Supreme Court decision will ultimately decide the fate of the revival of the ERA.
- Does Congress have the constitutional power to set and remove deadlines for the ratification of amendments, and if so what are the ramifications of this power?
- The article mentions states have rescinded their support for the amendment. How has support for the ERA wavered throughout the years?
- What will be the effects of the ratification of this amendment? How will the ERA change women’s rights in the United States? (Build off fishbowl discussion)
3. The ERA would help institutionalize gender equality and proactively discourage gender-based discrimination. Notably, unequal pay remains a major issue. Traditionally female jobs often pay much less than traditionally male jobs that demand comparable skill (e.g., female secretary and male accounts clerk), and women continue to earn only $0.81 for every $1.00 men make. Even more,
ReplyDeleteloopholes in the Equal Pay Act, such as being able to request the salary history of a potential employee, have allowed wage discrimination to persist. The ERA, however, would likely elevate gender from a level of intermediate scrutiny to one of strict scrutiny, discourage wage discrimination, and create another means for women to legally challenge this practice. In brief, the ERA would force the federal and state governments to prioritize women's rights and regard gender inequality as a more serious issue.
3. The ERA would not protect people who do not identify as male or female. The amendment would require women to be drafted into military combat any time men were conscripted, and would abolish the presumption that the husband should support his wife. The ERA would also take away Social Security benefits for wives and widows. It would give federal courts and the federal government enormous new powers to reinterpret every law that makes a distinction based on gender, such as those related to marriage, divorce, and alimony.
ReplyDelete3. The ERA has the potential to push forward against gender inequality and discrimination. It would destroy the gender pay gap entirely so ever $1 earned by a man is the same as a woman, it would set gender equality completely even since the Equal Pay act of 1963 failed to do so, and it would nationally order states to decide case outcomes base on the proof of the case and not gender: such as divorce, property, or other ownership rights not based on gender.
ReplyDelete1. I think that congress certainly has the power to set and remove deadlines for constitutional amendments. The constitution gives congress the power to start the process of amending the constitution so I believe that congress has the power to set deadlines as they are the body that starts the process. If anything, the state legislatures should have a concurrent power to agree on deadlines because they are the 2 bodies that are involved in amendments. I believe, however, that congress has more of a right to set deadlines because it is the national government and the process of an amendment starts in congress. The ramifications of this is that whoever is in power when the amendment process begins can set limitations on when it passes even when it can take years after the party in power is not in congress anymore. This can lead to an opposition party using limits to try and shut down an amendment they disagree with.
ReplyDelete2. Support of the ERA has wavered from its inception. Individuals, particularly women like Phyllis Schlafly, spread misinformation that the ERA would degrade rights for women. Labor unions actually were against the ERA as well, believing that the amendment would invalidate protective labor laws for women. However, as today's administration is consistently seen as degrading rights for women (i.e consistant attacks against abortion and other reproductive rights), there has been a resurgence in talks for ratifying the ERA.
ReplyDeleteThe ERA would be the primary force against gender inequality in the united states. Women would earn the ability to be equal to men, including in areas such as pay and ownership that may have not always been readily available to them. This may also include equality in other areas such as military drafts, blue collar jobs, and other determining factors that may have driven off the ERA in the past. Although I believe that the ERA should be passed, we must carefully consider the unforeseen consequences that this would lead to.
ReplyDelete2. Many people have had different ideas of equal rights for women. With each wave of feminism, gender equality has become more important and a pressing issue. From Betty Friedan and her book, The Feminine Mystique, women began rallying and fighting for their rights. However, other women like Jeffery mentioned such as Phyllis Schlafly saw gender equality differently. Some women liked to stay at home and raise their children while others wanted to work and contribute to the society. Now, I think people are more learning towards to latter, but the ERA does not limit women's abilities to stay at home if they wanted. As people have become increasingly involved in the government and want their rights, the talk of the ratification of the ERA has reappeared.
ReplyDelete#1 The decline in support for the ERA since 1982 can be attributed to the rise of the Evangelical camp of the Republican party. This group likely fears that in addition to promoting a drastic shift in social values, the ERA will also undermine pro-life arguments by providing further constitutional grounds for the legality of abortion. Conversely, Nevada and Virginia's ratification of the ERA in 2017 and 2018 reflects a surge in feminist sentiment following the beginning of the Me-Too movement. These key developments in the ratification process of the ERA reflect a society which has become increasingly polarized throughout the 21st century.
ReplyDelete3. The ERA would be the first and only part of the Constitution to fully protect against sex discrimination (besides the 9th Amendment, which protects women's right to vote and thus isn't a comprehensive protection against sex discrimination). It would make issues dealing with sex a suspect classification rather than intermediate scrutiny, which would mean that discriminatory laws of either sex would have to meet the highest level of justification to be upheld as Constitutional. This means that women's right to an abortion would likely be much more protected and many limitations on access to abortion in the states (like Alabama) would be eliminated. The ERA would also help guarantee women equality regarding equal pay and jobs.
ReplyDelete