Skip to main content

View Diary: If women are going into combat, then it's time to ratify the ERA [Important Update] (181 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  As others have said, laws are much easier to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Reepicheep, worldlotus

    ignore or change/overturn than Constitutional amendments are.  You put it into the Constitution, it's going to stay there.  The court says the 14th Amendment doesn't cover this issue (otherwise, why wouldn't this be illegal now?)

    •  But the ERA won't reach private discrimination (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      unless it is interpreted very differently from the 14th Amendment.

      The 14th Amendment bans discrimination by governments. Not only does it not forbid private discrimination in employment in its own right, but it doesn't even authorize Congress to pass laws against employment discrimination (except by government employers). See, the Civil Rights Cases. That's why Congress had to rely on its powers under the Commerce Clause to pass Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  

      And there's every reason to believe that the courts would interpret the ERA the same way--unless "equality of rights under the law" means something different than "the equal protection of the laws," the ERA is going to have virtually no effect on workplace discrimination.

      •  I refer you to the ERA organization page at (0+ / 0-)  They can answer your questions better than I can.

        •  It doesn't seem to address the issue (0+ / 0-)

          that the Court has not recognized that the 14th Amendment gave the Federal government the right to address the actions of private citizens (like the Ku Klux Klan). I don't think we want an ERA that will be interpreted by the courts as affecting only governmental action.

          Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

          by MichaelNY on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 02:51:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  They skirt the issue (0+ / 0-)

          Although the website implies there is a relationship between employment discrimination and the ERA, it offers no explaination of how or why this would be the case. If anything, it's discussion of the 14th Amendment suggests that the sole impact of ERA would be to make sex a suspect class. While this is undeniably true, the impact would be quite limited--instead of proving that a policy was reasonably related to an important government interest, government would have to prove that a policy was narrowly tailored to a compelling interest in order to justify gender discrimination.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site