The Equal Rights Amendment...What Do You Think Of It?

[Sanzbir]

Seems... unnecessary.

Unless I'm missing something, the issues that it could solve can/have been solved in other ways.

The gender issues that have yet to be solved that I can think of won't be fixed by this amendment.

As one example, one existing issue I can think of would be that the legal definition of rape in the US is structured in such a way that it only defines "forced penetration" as rape and not "forced envelopment", which excludes a good portion of male victims and a majority of female perps.

But this amendment wouldn't solve that issue, as the inequality with the law in that example above isn't an issue of the law itself isn't overtly discriminating in terms of sex: IE, the definitions of "rape" used by law do not discriminate between male and female victims as written (as the law does in, say, Israel), but the inequality results from how the act is legally defined.

 

[Nakosis]

Good question.
I've been pondering it.
My solution is to divide constitutional amendments into 2 parts.
1) The wording of the amendment, eg, you see as it stands in the ERA.
2) An ancillary document which gives elaboration on the intended effects, complete with examples.
This would guide interpretation, ie, "original intent" of the amendment.

Good idea, but I suspect many laws are made intentionally vague. Not so much for nefarious reasons but just so the lawmakers who have to pass it don't personally feel threatened by it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Being drafted into the army is not a right held by women or men.

To not be drafted is the right I speak of.

The 13th prohibited citizens from having slaves. It didn't prohibit compulsory military service which was already a power granted to Congress. As a citizen you can't go to your neighbor and demand money, but Congress does have the power to tax your neighbor. You need to understand which powers have been given to each branch of government and to citizens.

Let's look at the actual text....
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Note the underlined portion. It makes a distinction between slavery & involuntary servitude.
What is more involuntary than being drafted against one's will?
Or more servitudinous than marching off to kill or be killed in a foreign land?

Were it only about slavery, involuntary servitude would not be separately listed.
Are you still so sure that I am the one with the "need to understand"?

Then we don't have to worry about the draft, so your point is kind of moot.

It could raise its ugly head if some unwise petulant president thoughtlessly
embroils us in a large labor intensive "police action" during a budget crunch.
Lawmakers have argued for the short term cost savings of a lower paid
involuntary army. I've no worries now that I & my kids are past draft age, but
I certainly wouldn't want that injustice imposed upon anyone....even your kids.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you think comparing a black person to apes is racist or not racist?

In the case of Ms Barr, my money is on "racist".
What is your opinion...racist or not?

 

[Revoltingest]

Good idea, but I suspect many laws are made intentionally vague. Not so much for nefarious reasons but just so the lawmakers who have to pass it don't personally feel threatened by it.

I also suspect "good" intentions.
I recall Lyndon Johnson passing laws which he knew
contained effects he didn't want the public knowing of.

 

[Nakosis]

In the case of Ms Barr, my money is on "racist".
What is your opinion...racist or not?

There's got to be a rule somewhere that the longer a thread continues the more likely it will evolve into an argument about racism.

So I was wondering, if Roseanne had called Trump an ape, do you think she'd still have a job?

According to her, she didn't realize it was a black woman. $60 million dollar mistake in that case to be unaware of the ethnicity of the person you plan to insult.

 

[Revoltingest]

So I was wondering, if Roseanne had called Trump an ape, do you think she'd still have a job?

The standard is different because white people aren't offended by being called an ape.
We don't feel any racial animosity from it, unlike many black folk.
I've never heard Trump complain about being compared to an orangutan.
Although I bet orangutans are fuming with disgust.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Of course it is racist.

Then why say this?

"There is no need to get hostile and dish out strawmen. I'm talking about people who label Trump-supporters, like myself, as "racist"."

We aren't calling Barr a racist because she's a Trump supporter. We are calling her a racist because she compared a black person to apes.

It is just as racist as people making blond jokes, which is, in my opinion, very racist.

Blond hair isn't a race. People weren't kicked out of restaurants in the South because they had blond hair. Slavery of blond people wasn't justified because people with blond hair were considered to be sub-human.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

To not be drafted is the right I speak of.

That's not a right either.

Let's look at the actual text....
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 2 would be the part where Congress is still allowed to draft people into the Army.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

In the case of Ms Barr, my money is on "racist".
What is your opinion...racist or not?

One doesn't accidently use the Muslim Brotherhood and Planet of the Apes to describe someone with Iranian and African ancestry, so my money is on racist.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I find the language of the amendment both vague & redundant under
current federal law.

I agree it's very vague. I suspect this was done on purpose.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's not a right either.

As with all rights, it's a matter of consensus of opinion to the extent it's made law.
You have your opinion. And I disagree, based upon the 13th & 14th Amendments
(which applies equal protection to subject males) & a sense of fairness.

Section 2 would be the part where Congress is still allowed to draft people into the Army.

Except where prohibited by the Constitution, eg, the 13th Amendment.
Section 2 does not give carte blanche (pardon me French).

 

[Twilight Hue]

One doesn't accidently use the Muslim Brotherhood and Planet of the Apes to describe someone with Iranian and African ancestry, so my money is on racist.

I was wondering how the Muslim aspect came into play. It's definitely something that she should have thought out before she said it.

Kind of reminds me of all the high-profile slips of the tongue that celebrities have made through the years that have been put into the spotlight.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

As with all rights, it's a matter of consensus of opinion to the extend it's made law.

According to the US Constitution, it's a matter that is decided by the US Supreme Court, and they have already ruled on the matter:

"Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the practice of requiring only men to register for the draft was constitutional. After extensive hearings, floor debate and committee sessions on the matter, the United States Congress enacted the law, as it had previously been, to apply to men only."
Rostker v. Goldberg - Wikipedia

"Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), also known as the Selective Draft Law Cases, was a United States Supreme Court decision which upheld the Selective Service Act of 1917, and more generally, upheld conscription in the United States. The Supreme Court upheld that conscription did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, or the First Amendment's protection of freedom of conscience."
Selective Draft Law Cases - Wikipedia

 

[MountainPine]

Slavery of blond people wasn't justified because people with blond hair were considered to be sub-human.

They were according to the Turks who enslaved them. In fact, the term "slave" comes from the word "Slav".

Blond hair is a northern European phenotype, who are White. So yes, blond jokes are racist.

People weren't kicked out of restaurants in the South because they had blond hair.

OK, so slavery in the southern United States was evil, but slavery of Whites in medieval Turkey and northern Africa wasn't? This is what you're implying by your strawman. We were talking about slurs, not persecution.

Unbelievable.

 

[Revoltingest]

According to the US Constitution, it's a matter that is decided by the US Supreme Court, and they have already ruled on the matter:

"Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the practice of requiring only men to register for the draft was constitutional. After extensive hearings, floor debate and committee sessions on the matter, the United States Congress enacted the law, as it had previously been, to apply to men only."
Rostker v. Goldberg - Wikipedia

"Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), also known as the Selective Draft Law Cases, was a United States Supreme Court decision which upheld the Selective Service Act of 1917, and more generally, upheld conscription in the United States. The Supreme Court upheld that conscription did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, or the First Amendment's protection of freedom of conscience."
Selective Draft Law Cases - Wikipedia

The Supreme Court is wrong, no matter how tortured their reasoning to justify the status quo.
And you can tell'm I said so.

In your opinion, is the draft not involuntary servitude?
Does the 13th Amendment not specifically ban involuntary servitude?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I was wondering how the Muslim aspect came into play. It's definitely something that she should have thought out before she said it.

Kind of reminds me of all the high-profile slips of the tongue that celebrities have made through the years that have been put into the spotlight.

It could also be a case of self sabotage, which is what her ex Tom Arnold is suggesting.

 

[Revoltingest]

One doesn't accidently use the Muslim Brotherhood and Planet of the Apes to describe someone with Iranian and African ancestry, so my money is on racist.

"Muslim" & "Iranian" are not races.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

They were according to the Turks who enslaved them. In fact, the term "slave" comes from the word "Slav".

We aren't in Turkey.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

"Muslim" & "Iranian" are not races.

Never said they were.