Talk:Equal Rights Amendment/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article needs to be in the past tense

The article needs to be re-voiced in the past tense. The ERA was a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is not currently a proposed amendment, as the tone of the article suggests. The distinction is legally important.

On 25 September 1789, Congress dispatched the first twelve articles of amendment - the so-called Bill of Rights. The articles proposed as Amendments III through XII were ratified together on 15 December 1791; thus, they became part of the U.S. Constitution as Amendments I through X.

On 8 May 1992, the second of the 12 articles from 1789 was finally ratified and became part of the U.S. Constitution as Amendment XXVII. This was possible because the Congress did not assign a time limit for ratification when it proposed the first 12 articles of amendment in 1789.

The first of those 12 articles still has not been ratified (and most likely won't be), but ratification remains a legal possibility. There are also a number of other articles of amendment that were proposed prior to the 20th century that might theoretically still get ratified because Congress attached no deadline to them.

But that was not the case with the ERA. Like almost all articles of amendment proposed by Congress in the 20th century, it had to be ratified within seven years; or it was automatically nullified. As that deadline approached in 1979, Congress passed a resolution extending the deadline by three years. The ERA finally became a nullity in 1982, three votes shy of ratification.

In order for the ERA to become a proposed amendment again, the Congress must introduce it again (or a national constitutional convention must be held that introduces it) and dispatch it to the states for ratification by 38 of the 50 states.

The ratification process will need to start all over from the beginning. The previous 35 ratifications will not count because they were for the previously proposed article of amendment. When that proposal became a nullity in 1982, its ratifications also became a nullity.

Since this article is about the previously proposed article of amendment, which is now a nullity; this article should be voiced in the past tense. When the ERA is proposed again, 1) it will be a completely new proposed article of amendment that is part of a new process of ratification, and 2) it may or may not use the same language as the original ERA. Now would be a good time for proponents of a new ERA to consider how that proposed article of amendment might be worded. 73.162.218.153 (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

You have to keep in mind that whether the ERA is still open to being ratified is disputed. One State has gone so far as to ratify the ERA.[1] Because the ERA's status is unclear, this article is written in the present tense. Your claim that the ERA is dead may be correct, but Wikipedia must be neutral on this matter and can't predict the future. SMP0328. (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not disputed by anyone with any legal knowledge. The 1972 proposal is as dead as the dodo. It was not ratified by the requisite number of states prior to the expiration of the time limit THAT WAS A EXPLICIT PART OF THE TEXT. Nothing can change that. The Congressional attempt to extend it was unConstitutional on its face: Congress does NOT have the power to change an Amendment after states have ratified it. If Congress has that power, then they have the power to, for example, pass an Amendment that says "puppies are wonderful," and then after the 37th state has ratified the original version, change the text to say "The Bill of Rights is hereby repealed" and buy the votes of the Rhode Island legislature to give it the 38th ratification needed to enact it.

The 1972 proposal is dead, and all of the state ratifications died with it. That has nothing to do with the merits of the EPA, it is a simple matter of separation of powers. Congress can't change a proposed Amendment once it has been submitted to the states for ratification.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Equal Rights Amendment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Equal Rights Amendment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

1920s "feminism" is anachronistic.

The earlier women's movements were similar but not identical to feminism, and they did not call themselves "feminists." Burressd (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

We follow the RS and they use the term: eg 1) Lane, Christina. "The Politics of Feminism, Race, Community, and Place in the Florida Film Once Upon a Time (1922)." Feminist Media Histories 3.4 (2017): 69-101; 2) J. Stanley Lemons, The Woman Citizen Social Feminism in the 1920's (1973). 3) Estelle Freedman, "Separatism as strategy: Female institution building and American feminism, 1870-1930." Feminist Studies 5.3 (1979): 512-529. 4) Rapp, Rayna, and Ellen Ross. "The 1920s: Feminism, consumerism, and political backlash in the United States." in Women in culture and politics: A century of change (1986): 52-61. Rjensen (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

South Dakota & Rescission

In the late 1970s, South Dakota passed a resolution saying its ratification of the ERA would terminate as of March 22, 1979. I believe this counts as a rescission, even though it was delayed, and have a source (see page 41 of PDF. Gregory Watson claims that this counts as sunsetting, but not rescission. He claims rescission must be immediate. I edited the article to reflect South Dakota as having rescinded, but was reverted by Gregory Watson. I want to read from other editors. Is a delayed termination of a ratification a rescission via sunsetting or is it only a sunsetting? SMP0328. (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a rescission, not sunsetting. The 1979 deadline was only a few weeks away, the obvious intent was to pass a rescission without calling it a rescission; presumably to avoid political consequences for voting for to rescind their ratification. A link to South Dakota's resolution is here (beginning at the very bottom right of the page and continuing to the next). The resolution specifically uses the phrase "withdraws its ratification". Libertybison (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Gregory Watson has again reverted my edit that correctly described South Dakota as rescinding. Apparently, he believes an action must be immediate or it doesn't count. Justice Anthony Kennedy has announced that he is retiring as of July 31. Perhaps, we should say he didn't retire, because he didn't immediately cease to be a Justice. Instead, maybe we can say his time as a Justice simply sunsetted. SMP0328. (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

State Ratification Map - Recommend "Ratified Posthumously" category

I would like to recommend a new category for Nevada and Illinois on the map, as Ratified - Posthumously, given that these are symbolic ratifications and makes the map look confusing with them blended together with proper valid and timely ratifications of the 70's. Select a different color, perhaps deep red or yellow or purple. - 67.0.200.106 (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind that those States claim their ratifications are valid. They are following the "three-states strategy", which alleges that the time limit on ratifying the ERA was not completely valid because it was not in the text of the proposed amendment. This strategy says that the time limit at most rendered the ERA dormant, but did not kill it and that if three States that did not ratify it within the time limit do so afterward, the Congress may recognize the ERA as having been ratified by three-fourths of the States and thus having become part of the Constitution. This strategy also supposes that States are not permitted to rescind their ratifications even to a proposed amendment not yet adopted. All this means that saying the Nevada and Illinois ratifications have been done "posthumously" would be POV. Still, a distinction between those ratifications and previous ones may be proper so as to show the Nevada and Illinois ratifications' disputed status. SMP0328. (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with SMP0328 about the Illinois and Nevada ratifications. Although, I disagree with putting states where only one house of a state legislature voted to ratify the amendment on the map. If only one chamber votes to ratify and the other doesn't, the bill dies and both houses have to pass a bill in the next legislative session. It's the same result as if neither voted for it. One house of Connecticut's legislature voted for the Congressional Apportionment Amendment in 1790, but that's not reflected on that article's ratification map. So why should it be on this one? Libertybison (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with the 'posthumously' label for the same reason as SMP0328. However it does provide useful information because the "three-state strategy" ratification would only come into effect if Congress voted to extend the deadline after the new states ratified the amendment, as I understand it. Bhbuehler (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I have uploaded such a map with the category called "Ratified after June 30, 1982". Bhbuehler (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add the correct color in the legend regarding post-1982 ratifications. With that said, I like the new map. SMP0328. (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Strangely, when I see the map using my mobile phone the color legend for the post-1982 ratifications is purple matching the map colors, but when I look at it on my desktop the legend is white and not a match to the map. Libertybison (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Ratifying state with self-declared March 22, 1979, sunset provision

Any objections if I work to remove this section? Its somewhat hard to parse (including the section title) and puts a lot of emphasis on the details of South Dakota's actions. I suggest adding SD to the list of rescinded states above, and including explanatory text similar to what Tennessee has now to note the differences between the sunsetting/rescinding SD did and the more straightforward rescinding of the other states. But including a whole section for this seems excessive, as do the details about what the resolution was named after being presented to the senate, court cases that occurred years after SD's resolution passed, etc.ArkF (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

State equal rights amendments

Should this section be titled "State equal rights clauses" or "provisions"? Of those listed, only one is in the form of an amendment. —Tamfang (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Tense in First Sentence

It looks like there have been edits back and forth about the tense of the first sentence, now stated in an awful form: "is or was[note 1]". I believe that the tense should be present, given that it is a proposal under active consideration (regardless of its legal status). Also, other proposed amendments use a present tense: School Prayer Amendment, Flag Desecration Amendment, Single subject amendment. Minding (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

add Mitch McConnell is “not a supporter” of the measure and is unlikely to take it up in the US Senate?

X1\ (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Update

Hi Mathmitch7, could you please say more about what needs to be updated in this article? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Mostly that multiple lawsuits are ongoing; maybe there's a more appropriate tag like Template:Current. I think the document further down does a decent job covering these lawsuits as I understand their present situation, but the lead could be improved, and there may be more news I'm just not personally aware of. I haven't kept up on the topic in a few months. - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is amusingly biased

read the criticisms page. the narrator is actually inserting her/himself into the discussion of those criticizing the equal rights act. is this what wikipedia has become? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:CE80:89E0:9890:68DF:C619:F006 (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this still relevant? I Am Hunted (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The anonymous comment does not provide enough information to allow anyone to understand the commenter's concerns. DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)