Daily Kos

View Story | 98 comments

  •  Frankly, ... (none / 0)

    The ERA isn't something I've given much thought too.  Why?  Because in my view women are entitled to equal rights with men under our present understanding of the Constitution.  

    I certainly understand why the ERA was first proposed by the Suffrage Movement back in the wake of the 19th.  But, that living Constitution thing appears to have prevailed over an originalist view of the Constitution.  If you're not an originalist (and I'm not), there's no need for an ERA.

    And I tend to think that the impetus for the ERA has largely died because of a perceived lack of need.  

    Proposing a Right to Privacy Amendment in the present rhetorical environment risks a reverse process to that which rendered the ERA irrelevant.  The public would see any such effort by the Left as a fatal admission that the Right is correct that there is no right to privacy now.

    by cityduck on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 06:04:28 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Well . . . (none / 0)

      . . . for starters, that depends on its being seen as proposed by people on the Left, doesn't it?  Doesn't have to be that way.

      The ERA was ratified by 35 states, three short of passage.  It was important because intermediate scruty isn't enough, and still is.

      We can advance the claim without forfeiting our mode of constitutional interpretation, especially because on the ground level where this will be fought, people won't care.

      More and Better Democrats: Help Build An Obamajority.

      by Adam B on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 06:19:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "proposed by people on the Left" (none / 0)

        No poblem getting the libertarian right and libertarians behind ths one.

        The opening round should be introduction of State Contitution Right to Privacy Amendments.

        Ron Paul as initial sponsor in the House?

        Democratic Candidate for US Senate, WI (2012)
        Masel4senate

        by ben masel on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 08:48:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree. (none / 0)

        >>We can advance the claim without forfeiting our mode of constitutional interpretation, especially because on the ground level where this will be fought, people won't care.<<

        My point is really simple.  Right now, in the context of the Roberts confirmation, a strong argument against Roberts is that he is a radical because he doesn't think that there is a right to privacy in the Constitution.  And Roberts' strategy in defending these claims is to obscure his position (and perhaps his position is obscure), in contrast, for example, with Bork who just admitted he thought there no such right to privacy.  Roberts' has to take this obscure position because most of us do believe there is such a right to privacy.

        If, in contrast to the present, there was a movement supported by Democrats and prominent liberals to add a Right to Privacy amendment to the Federal Constitution, Roberts could not be portrayed as out of the mainstream for believing there was no Right of Privacy now.  Such an amendment validates the view there is no right of privacy now.  This is not analogous to the ERA because at the time the ERA was proposed women clearly were not granted equal rights.

        by cityduck on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 09:10:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

View Story | 98 comments