Justice Scalia is right. The Constitution doesn't protect women from discrimination.

[^_^ 5,021]

Justice Scalia is known for many things. Advocating for an amendment to the Constitution to protect women from discrimination? Generally not chief among them.

But in an interview for the magazine California Lawyer, that's exactly what he did.

... the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't ... If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box ... That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

The reaction to Justice Scalia's claim that the neither the Constitution, nor the 14th Amendment to it, protect women from discrimination was met with swift and fierce condemnation.

...

Justice Scalia's words should be shocking to precisely no one. In his decades-long tenure on the nation's highest court, he has repeatedly made clear his "originalist" views of the Constitution.

...

Here's the twist: Justice Scalia's not wrong.

The Constitution doesn't protect women from discrimination. For all of our progress and fractured glass ceilings, the only part of the Constitution that recognizes any rights for women is the 19th Amendment, which only protects womens' right to vote. That's it. And that's not much. Even the Constitution of Afghanistan ... grants more rights to women than our own Constitution.

...

American suffragists who fought for passage of the 19th Amendment understood at the time that it addressed only one of the many forms of discrimination against women; in order to achieve full equality under the law, the Constitution required further amendment. That's why Alice Paul, one of the leaders of the suffrage movement, also penned the original Equal Rights Amendment. "We shall not be safe," she said, "until the principle of equal rights is written into the framework of our government."

The ERA was first proposed in 1923. It was passed by both chambers of Congress in 1972. It was ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states. (The 15 states that refused? Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.)

The text of the ERA is simple:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

One would think such a radical notion -- an amendment to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex -- would not be controversial. For 40 years, even the Republican Party's platform included an endorsement of the ERA. (The conservative uprising in 1980 put an end to that.)

A poll conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation in 2001 found:

* 96 percent of Americans believe men and women should have equal rights

* 72 percent of Americans believe the Constitution already specifies equal rights for men and women

* 88 percent of Americans believe the Constitution should specify equal rights for men and women

If an overwhelming majority of Americans believe the Constitution has already been amended to ensure equal rights for men and women, one would think such an amendment would pass as easily and uncontroversially as a bill to name a post office.

That's why it has been re-introduced at the beginning of each new session of Congress for nearly 30 years.

...

Usually, re-introduction of the ERA gets a big yawn of dismissal ... Opponents dismiss the bill as a waste of time and a detraction from the real work of Congress. Besides, the need to amend the Constitution no longer exists. Everyone knows women are entitled to equal rights under the law. Right? Why waste resources righting for an unnecessary Constitutional amendment? Thus, each Congressional session, the bill to re-introduce the ERA fades into obscurity.

But this year, maybe, just maybe, things could be different. Thanks to Justice Scalia.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/9/934111/-Justice-Scalias-accidental-argument-for-equal-rights

Edited January 9, 2011 by \

[^_^ 5,021]

The 15 states that refused? Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.

I think they could probably get Florida, Illinois, North Carolina and Virginia to turn today.. if they wanted to. The other states are probably still hopeless.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

The constitution lists persons...... I guess in the deluded eye of some, women aren't 'persons'

No amendment needed.... Black, white, Hispanic, man, woman, etc... We're all persons...

[^_^ 5,021]

Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

The constitution lists persons...... I guess in the deluded eye of some, women aren't 'persons'

No amendment needed.... Black, white, Hispanic, man, woman, etc... We're all persons...

Scalia thinks otherwise. He's a justice on the SCOTUS while you're... well, you're nobody.

Q. In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

A. Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that.

Edited January 9, 2011 by \

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Scalia thinks otherwise. He's a justice on the SCOTUS while you're... well, you're nobody.

Q. In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

A. Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that.

oooo a justice on the SCOTUS! I am so scared.

doesn't make him any better than anyone else.

It's damn blind ignorance to not understand "persons."

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

oooo a justice on the SCOTUS! I am so scared.

doesn't make him any better than anyone else.

It's damn blind ignorance to not understand "persons."

Dude! If you are going to hang on the right, you have to be a strict constructionist. So under that philosophy, until the E.R.A. passes, women have only one expressed right under the US Constitution: They can vote.

[james&olya 1,121]

Dude! If you are going to hang on the right, you have to be a strict constructionist. So under that philosophy, until the E.R.A. passes, women have only one expressed right under the US Constitution: They can vote.

I suppose just ignoring the crazy ranter wouldn't work? Not Scalia, the one on here!

[Ban Hammer 13,427]

Dude! If you are going to hang on the right, you have to be a strict constructionist. So under that philosophy, until the E.R.A. passes, women have only one expressed right under the US Constitution: They can vote.

then they don't have to make dinner either as that's not expressed.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

then they don't have to make dinner either as that's not expressed.

Shut up Charles! and get back in the kitchen.

ETA:

Edited January 9, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[luckytxn 2,264]

I am for it and I would like to suggest that all woman read up on the history of why it failed last. It was on track to succeed the last time. Every state put it up for a vote and it passed handily each and every time. The champaign was flowing each time. A woman no one really ever knew started articles that was picked up nationwide explaining what the ramifications of what it would mean to woman and then many started to question it and if they wanted this to happen. A few more states passed it and it was at that 35 level and then a couple of states tried and failed. It seemed that woman in those states politicked hard for its failure. All of a sudden a sure thing started to unravel and no one wanted to touch it anymore and most of all woman didn't want it to pass.

It is a new dawn and maybe woman should have all the rights we men have. Why not? Remember if it passes there can be no laws at all ever that recognizes men and woman differently. They must be judged as equal for EVERYTHING.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I think they could probably get Florida, Illinois, North Carolina and Virginia to turn today.. if they wanted to. The other states are probably still hopeless.

Nevada would be easy these days. Las Vegas has something they didn't have when the E.R.A. was first introduced: Suburbs. With low taxes and warm climate, the place has grown a long way from just a strip of hotels and casinos.

The ERA was passed out of Congress in 1972 and has been ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states. When three more states vote yes, it is possible that the ERA could become the 28th Amendment. The ERA could also be ratified by restarting the traditional process of passage by a two-thirds majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives, followed by ratification by legislatures in three-quarters (38) of the 50 states.

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/

Edited January 10, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[daboyz 36]

kinda surprised this didn't get locked. Mods are going nuts with that now. I'd personally like to see the debate.

[james&olya 1,121]

I am for it and I would like to suggest that all woman read up on the history of why it failed last. It was on track to succeed the last time. Every state put it up for a vote and it passed handily each and every time. The champaign was flowing each time. A woman no one really ever knew started articles that was picked up nationwide explaining what the ramifications of what it would mean to woman and then many started to question it and if they wanted this to happen. A few more states passed it and it was at that 35 level and then a couple of states tried and failed. It seemed that woman in those states politicked hard for its failure. All of a sudden a sure thing started to unravel and no one wanted to touch it anymore and most of all woman didn't want it to pass.

It is a new dawn and maybe woman should have all the rights we men have. Why not? Remember if it passes there can be no laws at all ever that recognizes men and woman differently. They must be judged as equal for EVERYTHING.

And the big problem for many has to do with the idea of the military drafting women! I personally think it would be a good idea, not that I want to see young mothers in combat, but that it might help prevent some of the fool-hardy military adventures we have gotten into, like Iraq, Vietnam, etc. And if it happened that we did need the draft, women could go in to all sorts of support fields, even here in the states. I personally think it might be a good idea if everyone was expected to give their country 2 years of service in some capacity, one option being military service.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

27th Amendment

The 27th Amendment was originally proposed on September 25, 1789, as an article in the original Bill of Rights. It did not pass the required number of states with the articles we now know as the first ten amendments. It sat, unratified and with no expiration date, in constitutional limbo, for more than 80 years when Ohio ratified it to protest a congressional pay hike; no other states followed Ohio's lead, however. Again it languished, for more than 100 years.

In 1978, Wyoming ratified the amendment, but there was again, no follow-up by the remaining states. Then, in the early 1980's, Gregory Watson, an aide to a Texas legislator, took up the proposed amendment's cause. From 1983 to 1992, the requisite number of states ratified the amendment, and it was declared ratified on May 7, 1992 (74,003 days).

http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html

That's 202 years.

Amendment 27 - Limiting Changes to Congressional Pay

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Edited January 10, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[^_^ 5,021]

oooo a justice on the SCOTUS! I am so scared.

doesn't make him any better than anyone else.

scared? better?

No one ever said you should be scared or that Scalia is a better person than you are (although we all know he would run circles around you and I doubt he shares your terrorist leanings).

And interestingly enough, the supreme court is even mentioned in article 1 section 3 of the constitution. It makes no mention of the imaginary powers of our own little Scrappy Doo!

So yeah - the opinion of a justice of the SCOTUS on constitutional matters is more meaningful than yours. Scalia is a justice on the highest court of the land, and you are not.

That said.... PUPPY POWER!!!!