Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Make the Democrats Talk About Sex

 

Yes, really. I mean the meaning of “sex.” The leftists in the House of Representatives passed a resolution purporting to extend the deadline for passage of a Constitutional amendment that had failed for lack of ratification by the specified deadline. The Democrats did so as part of election politics. The Senate Republicans should seize the opportunity given them, rather than playing into Chuck and Nancy’s hand.

Democrats want to run this year as women’s rights advocates, even as they destroy the rights of actual girls and women. It is time one party stood up for girls and women against the patriarchy in dresses. The ERA, if passed as currently written, will be weaponized by the left, reading their cultural agenda through the word “sex.” Nevertheless, the recurring story we will see and hear for the next nine months will be that a bunch of old white men, led by Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump, are standing in the way of women’s equality. It does not have to go this way.

The Democrats almost slipped the ERA by us back in 1972-1973, whereafter Phyllis Schlafly mobilized effective opposition. Eventually, several states reversed their ratification. Yet, the Democrats intend to claim in court that a state cannot un-ratify, so they get to collect every state, with the more recent passage by Virginia making the magical 38th state, adding the already redefined amendment onto the end of the Constitution, trumping all previous language—especially the First Amendment’s religion clauses.

To get to their grand prize, the Democrats passed House Joint Resolution 79 on February 13, 2020.

H. J. RES. 79

JOINT RESOLUTION
Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding any time limit contained in House Joint Resolution 208, 92d Congress, as agreed to in the Senate on March 22, 1972, the article of amendment proposed to the States in that joint resolution shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the United States Constitution whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.

Passed the House of Representatives February 13, 2020.

What is this “equal rights amendment?”*

You can see the Joint Resolution, on its face, set a deadline. That deadline was controversially extended by a supposed piece of legislation, passed by both chambers and signed by President Carter. If you missed that procedure in your pocket constitution, you do not have the correct progressive lens for reading. The deadline came and went in 1982.

Think very carefully about what “sex” has become in our academic and cultural elite: “gender,” “sexuality?” Note the complete lack of acknowledgment that there might be any conflict with the first freedom in the First Amendment [emphasis added]:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

With the ERA, federal courts can impose their beliefs on the entire country, effectively outlawing the kind of religion they do not like. This is because each new amendment must be read as controlling all prior language in the Constitution, otherwise, it would not be an “amendment.” There are two legitimate ways to actually amend the Constitution. They are laid out in Article V [emphasis added]:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

As it happens, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has weighed in on the subject of ratification. She did so earlier this month at Georgetown Law School. While I almost never agree with her court opinions, she is still a very clear thinker. There is real wisdom in her response to the question of the ERA, wisdom Republican senators and conservative activists should hear and heed. As Vox reported: “Ruth Bader Ginsburg probably just dealt a fatal blow to the Equal Rights Amendment.”

Three-fourths of the states, or 38 total, are required to amend the Constitution. Last month, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the ERA and one of only three states to do so since 1977 — but there’s a catch. Congress imposed a 1982 deadline on states hoping to ratify the ERA, though there’s doubt about whether this deadline is binding.

Ginsburg’s comments on Monday suggest that she believes this 1982 deadline should be considered binding. “I would like to see a new beginning” for ERA ratification, the justice told McKeown.

“There’s too much controversy about latecomers,” Ginsburg added. “Plus, a number of states have withdrawn their ratification. So if you count a latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard states that said ‘we’ve changed our minds?’”

According to the Washington Post, five states — Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, and South Dakota — voted to ratify the ERA but later rescinded that ratification.

Here is the whole conversation, available only on Facebook, but not requiring any log-in [relevant section starts around 42:45]:

Searching for Equality: The 19th Amendment and Beyond

100 years after the 19th Amendment guaranteed women the right to vote in the United States, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge M. Margaret McKeown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will discuss that watershed moment and the continued fight for equal rights for women that has followed.

Posted by Georgetown Law on Monday, February 10, 2020

Instead of timidly either playing vote-scheduling games or passing the buck by passing the House resolution, the Senate Republican leadership should get in front of cameras and thank the Democrats for bringing up an important and timely subject. They should then say that the old ERA failed, not once but twice, even after being given extra time. Senate Majority Leader McConnell should quote Justice Ginsburg on the importance of proper ratification and then say that women’s rights are too important to cut corners and get the courts involved. The Republicans should announce that it is time to do it right, time to fully examine the original language of the failed amendment, the pros and cons from all the years in between, and to then vote on a better, modern amendment that fully protects women’s rights without any infringement on people of faith.

Then hold the hearings. Get the craziness on the record before the 2020 party conventions, before the general election. Get the old warnings and the actual history on the record. Finally, put forward a clearly worded amendment for proper, constitutional consideration by each chamber of Congress, prior to sending it to the states for ratification. The Democrats want no part of any such discussion, especially in a presidential election year. Call their bluff in the name of women, honesty, and fairness.


* From the National Archives Foundation:

Published in Law
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 19 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Paul Erickson Member

    RBG seems to be saying, if you want to have a do-over, you have to do it over. 

    Of course, there’s no need for an amendment to protect people from discrimination based on sex, since I can be one sex today, another sex tomorrow, and a third next Tuesday.

    • #1
    • February 17, 2020, at 6:44 PM PST
    • 12 likes
  2. RightAngles Member

    I hope McConnell sees this.

    • #2
    • February 17, 2020, at 6:45 PM PST
    • 10 likes
  3. CJ Coolidge
    CJ

    Let them. I won’t sign it, so I won’t be bound by it, according to the general principles of Law and Reason.

    • #3
    • February 17, 2020, at 7:24 PM PST
    • 1 like
  4. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge

    This is an interesting trick. So we can put up an amendment get everybody to vote yes then change it and involve it? We can have some fun with this trick if the GOP had the guts to do it. 

    • #4
    • February 17, 2020, at 7:42 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  5. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown

    Paul Erickson (View Comment):

    RBG seems to be saying, if you want to have a do-over, you have to do it over.

    Of course, there’s no need for an amendment to protect people from discrimination based on sex, since I can be one sex today, another sex tomorrow, and a third next Tuesday.

    Exactly the intended meaning of the Democrats.

    • #5
    • February 17, 2020, at 7:45 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  6. The Reticulator Member

    Some people say, “one person, one vote, one time.” But that isn’t quite right. People can vote as many times as they want until they get it right. Then the “one time” kicks in. That’s how the EU was formed.

    • #6
    • February 17, 2020, at 9:14 PM PST
    • 12 likes
  7. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Some people say, “one person, one vote, one time.” But that isn’t quite right. People can vote as many times as they want until they get it right. Then the “one time” kicks in. That’s how the EU was formed.

    Well said.

    • #7
    • February 18, 2020, at 1:48 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  8. Aaron Miller Member
    Aaron Miller Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    That’s an interesting proposition. But I would never trust Republicans to control the narrative. 

    • #8
    • February 18, 2020, at 5:54 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  9. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    This is, of course, insane. The ratification process is over. What states voted on was the original resolution. 

    • #9
    • February 18, 2020, at 5:56 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  10. Randy Webster Member

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    People can vote as many times as they TPTB want until they get it right

     

    • #10
    • February 18, 2020, at 2:59 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  11. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):

    That’s an interesting proposition. But I would never trust Republicans to control the narrative.

    Fair point, and there is going to be a narrative or two, so Republicans have to act or react.

    • #11
    • February 18, 2020, at 3:05 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  12. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    This is, of course, insane. The ratification process is over. What states voted on was the original resolution.

    Yes. And Democrats are crazy like a fox. This, in the short run, is about political theater.

    • #12
    • February 18, 2020, at 3:07 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  13. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):

    That’s an interesting proposition. But I would never trust Republicans to control the narrative.

    That is because Republicans as a general rule are just Democrats with a slightly more realistic view of how finances work. Sort of junior partners is this rigged game of government control we consider the land of the free.

    • #13
    • February 18, 2020, at 9:39 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  14. Old Bathos Moderator

    The ERA was generated at a time (1971) when liberals assumed that SCOTUS would always be in the hands of those who saw the Constitution as a “living” document. ( Roe v. Wade was handed down in 1970. ) Roe and the ERA, combined with an expansive view of what constitutes “discrimination” plus new powers granted to Congress to legislate in this area with the need for the figleaf of interstate commerce meant spectacular opportunities for mischief and, at a minimum, the chance to make it impossible to roll back or curtail Roe v. Wade.

    • #14
    • February 19, 2020, at 6:42 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  15. Rodin Member

    Someone is going to have to explain to me why you need an ERA when there are 100 genders? Does this not put everything back on to the 14th Amendment formulation of “persons”?

    • #15
    • February 19, 2020, at 8:44 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  16. Rightfromthestart Coolidge

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Some people say, “one person, one vote, one time.” But that isn’t quite right. People can vote as many times as they want until they get it right. Then the “one time” kicks in. That’s how the EU was formed.

    In the same way that an issue endorsed by the right, even if 95% of the public agrees, remains forever ‘controversial’ until such time that 50.001% of the public agrees with the left, then it becomes a mandate and settled law. 

    • #16
    • February 19, 2020, at 11:57 AM PST
    • 5 likes
  17. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Someone is going to have to explain to me why you need an ERA when there are 100 genders? Does this not put everything back on to the 14th Amendment formulation of “persons”?

    This is why I say the Senate Republicans should seize the opportunity to talk about real equality for women and girls.

    • #17
    • February 19, 2020, at 12:28 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  18. The Reticulator Member

    Rightfromthestart (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Some people say, “one person, one vote, one time.” But that isn’t quite right. People can vote as many times as they want until they get it right. Then the “one time” kicks in. That’s how the EU was formed.

    In the same way that an issue endorsed by the right, even if 95% of the public agrees, remains forever ‘controversial’ until such time that 50.001% of the public agrees with the left, then it becomes a mandate and settled law.

    Yes, good point, although there really is no such thing as agreeing with the left. For example (from another thread) as soon as you go along with their idea that health care is a human right, you find they don’t really mean that health care is a human right, because they don’t think racists should be provided with health care.

    • #18
    • February 19, 2020, at 2:16 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  19. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Rightfromthestart (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Some people say, “one person, one vote, one time.” But that isn’t quite right. People can vote as many times as they want until they get it right. Then the “one time” kicks in. That’s how the EU was formed.

    In the same way that an issue endorsed by the right, even if 95% of the public agrees, remains forever ‘controversial’ until such time that 50.001% of the public agrees with the left, then it becomes a mandate and settled law.

    Yes, good point, although there really is no such thing as agreeing with the left. For example (from another thread) as soon as you go along with their idea that health care is a human right, you find they don’t really mean that health care is a human right, because they don’t think racists should be provided with health care.

    The pathological relationship between the NHS and the British people must be an enormous flashing warning sign to us. Watch any Prime Minister Question Time and you will see abject grovelling and genuflection by everyone. NO ONE ever speaks ill of the sacred NHS, worthy of all reverence and praise. Really. Go and watch one or two sessions on the official YouTube channel. Then judge if I exaggerate or understate.

    That said, your point reinforces my OP point that Republicans need to seize the initiative in the game that is being played, rather than accepting their assigned role.

    • #19
    • February 19, 2020, at 4:11 PM PST
    • 3 likes