54 DEMOCRATIC SENATORS CAN GET US THE 27TH ERA AMENDMENT

[ancianita]

Last edited Sun Jun 26, 2022, 10:57 AM - Edit history (2)

The founders didn't think women were people. Women
-- couldn't vote,
-- couldn't own property,
-- couldn't sit on juries,
-- couldn't hold public office
-- couldn't do anything without their husband's permission.
Girls were married off to gain social status or political favors from other families; once married, girls and women could be beaten and raped. Marital rape was on the books until 1993, in OUR LIFETIME.

And that's how the men who wrote the Constitution treated the white women they LIKED.
Black women could be raped anywhere, anytime with total impunity, the children born from white men were slaves from birth to death.

People argue that slavery was practiced throughout the world but the rest of the world didn't make slavery a condition FROM BIRTH like here. HERE, unlike elsewhere, white men didn't allow their bastard children to join the clergy or army, which was common in the rest of the world. Here bondage was passed down through every black woman that any white men impregnated.

And children? I already mentioned marrying girls off. Any children who survived infancy could be put out in the fields to work, beaten if they misbehaved. Framers of the Constitution had no care for widows and orphans.
And that's how they treated the children they LIKED.

The nutshell history of how they treated children they didn't like: their own progeny from slaves -- no more than profit centers, labor raised to market, like lambs to the slaughter. Later all white children, particularly of immigrants, were set to work in factories, apprenticed. School was for children of the rich.

NO man should dare fix his lying mouth around "the rights of the unborn" when their kind, for centuries, condemned their own progeny to rape, bondage and lifelong torment -- TO BUILD MEN'S WEALTH. TO MAKE MONEY.

The first principle that the men who wrote the Constitution missed is that WOMEN ARE PEOPLE. FULL EQUAL PEOPLE. MILLIONS OF MEN STILL DON'T BELIEVE THAT.

If you DO believe that women are people, then the right to privacy (14th Amendment & Griswold v Conn) then all the reproductive rights that flow from it are straightforward and beyond obvious.

The Comstock Act of 1873 prevented the sending of contraceptives through the MAIL.
Today that law would be resurrected for MEN as much as for women. Yet the facts on the ground show that men can at anytime obtain contraceptives wherever they want them. When any soldier can get a pack of condoms while whoring his way through this war against women, but then denies ANY wife, woman or girl birth control (bc) pills -- from 1960 on -- that right there is a point-and-click violation of the 14th Amendment and Griswold and the Comstock Act.

Men have had the right to sex-without-incubation for 5 - 7 million years. As with Griswold, or the Comstock Act, or Roe, many rights in the Constitution make no sense without the right to privacy, AND UNenumerated rights are ALSO protected by the 9th Amendment.

Yes. PRIVACY IS A THING. It has been the basis of much gun legislation, and based on the 14th Amendment. Stupid conservatives who mock the right to privacy STILL cock their guns over anyone invading their "castle," don't they.

Roe got passed because of the privacy and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment.
What is left of the Roe ruling that the SCOTUS NOW refers to the states is this:
Roe emphasized a "legitimate state interest" in limiting abortions for the benefit of the health of the mother and "protecting the potentiality of human life." So that's why today's SCOTUS sent abortion decisions back to the states.

That'a also why, back in the states, THE BONDAGE CLASS OF MALES AND LAWMAKERS CAN KISS ALL WOMEN'S AND CHILDREN'S ASSES OVER THEIR CLAIM TO THE DOUBLE STANDARD OF PRIVACY.

THEY HAVE DECIDED WHO STILL GETS EQUALITY OF PEOPLE UNDER THE LAW. Which helps explain why corpses have more prior bodily autonomy rights than pregnant women.

No justices have adopted ANY equal protection framework for women.
Once you start giving women equal protection of laws, the whole damn patriarchy starts to crumble. Why?
Because when the ERA is passed, ALL laws that limit women socially, legally, economically, will be NULLIFIED ACROSS 50 STATES.

Which is why to this very day, the ERA is still stalled in Congress, though already ratified by 38 states.

At the beginning of the 117th Congress, a joint resolution (H.J.Res. 17) to remove the deadline for ratification was again introduced in both chambers, with bipartisan support.[195] The House passed the resolution by a 222–204 vote on March 17, 2021.[196][197] The companion bill, S.J.Res. 1, introduced by Senator Ben Cardin, was co-sponsored by all members of the Senate Democratic Caucus and Republicans Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins.[198] This means there are fifty-two senators who back the resolution, however, no vote on the resolution has taken place by the committee or by the full Senate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment#Congressional_extension_of_ratification_deadline

The bill in the U. S. House of Representatives -- H. J. RES 17 -- will be codified as the 27th Amendment WHEN DEMOCRATS GET 54 SENATORS.


John Fetterman makes 51, Val Demings makes 52. Who else have we got on deck.

We need to get out there in 2022 to donate to them and whoever else we can get.



MEN'S WAR AGAINST WOMEN SITS STALLED IN CONGRESS RIGHT NOW.

[2naSalit]

1. K&R

[3auld6phart]

2. A powerful read

Thank you.

[ancianita]

3. Thank YOU for reading.

[onetexan]

41. Ditto!!

[onenote]

4. Why 54?

[ancianita]

15. I literally watched Sheldon Whitehouse bring the number up, as have a number of media sources.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/14/why-54-may-be-the-magic-number-house-democrats-need-to-win-back-the-majority/

If it sounds weak, I'd ask, what've you got?

[onenote]

37. The article - 2016 - says that getting 54% of the vote in the presidential election

is key to getting a majority in the House and Senate. It says absolutely nothing about getting 54 Senators.

And I can find absolutely nothing on line that suggest that the Democrats need 54 Senators to do anything.

Fifty four is simply not a magic number for anything.

[ancianita]

40. Fine. But I'm not deleting it because I saw Whitehouse tell an MSNBC host that figure.

I think it was on Joy Reid, and I remember her emphatically repeating that to the MSNBC audience, even if I can't find the video on it yet.

Whether or not I find the video doesn't prove that I'm making stuff up here, or not understanding the significance of that number, as seems to be implied.

[ancianita]

42. "Fifty four is simply not a magic number for anything." Tell that to Sheldon Whitehouse.

Start 5:15

This was a video about gun reform, though now that it's been passed, this number can still apply to moving the ERA front and center.

[onenote]

49. It is far from clear what Whitehouse is talking about, but it doesn't change the fact that 54 isn't

a magic number.

He claims that with 'four or five" more Democratic Senators there would be a way around the filibuster. But its not at all clear what he's' suggesting. Most logically, he's suggesting that because there are some Democrats that wouldn't support lifting the filibuster generally or even for a specific gun control measure, we need more Democrats to overcome those no votes. But that just assumes that the Democrats that get elected would be supportive of lifting the filibuster. Fifty-four isn't a magic number (thus "four or five" per Whitehouse).

Moreover, the issue of ratifying the ERA is far more complicated that passing gun control legislation. First, there is the issue of whether Congress can extend the deadline after it has expired. Second, there is the question of whether it can be extended by a simple majority vote, since the resolution that imposed the deadline required (and received) a 2/3 vote, not a simple majority and it cannot be assumed that the courts would accept a majority vote undoing a 2/3 vote. Finally, there is the issue of the rescission by certain states of their ratification of the ERA. It is again not at all certain that the courts would conclude that a state cannot, prior to an amendment being ratified by the requisite number of states, rescind a prior ratification.

[ancianita]

51. Don't play word games. He SAID 54 or 55 would make a filibuster workaround for anything.

No, the ERA ISN'T more complicated than gun control. That's apple and oranges you got here.

The ERA is an amendment. Gun control is a law based on an amendment.

[onenote]

64. Not even close.

He didn't explain at all what this workaround would be. The only logical thing he could be referring to is getting enough Democrats so that there were 50 votes to do away with the filibuster. But there is no guarantee that the additional Democrats elected (and four or five would be a stretch anyway) would support doing away with the filibuster.

And the issues raised with respect to ratifying the ERA are no not remotely similar to the issues raised with passing gun control legislation (which would still have to survive constitutional review since Whitehouse is talking about gun control legislation not a constitutional amendment).

[dlk]

48. Manchin and Sinema...

n/t

[brooklynite]

5. The ERA is not stalled in Congress, its dead.

When the text was written, a sunset clause was added. That was not standard for Constitutional Amendments, and the writers didn't have to but they did. That date has passed. This idea that the Congress can "extend the deadline" after the sunset clause takes affect is a legal theory that hasn't been tested in Court.

The only way to pass it will be to start over, and in this political environment you'll get fewer States approving it. Add to which, some States that passed the original ERA rescinded their approval; you won't be able to pick up where you started before without legally resolving their status.

[ancianita]

6. Not dead. Because re those states' rescinding, the 54 can legally resolve those states' status.

[brooklynite]

8. Who are "the 54"?

I have no idea what this means.

[ancianita]

10. Reread the OP title. 54 Democratic senators we vote in.

Two are on deck that I know of -- Fetterman and Demings -- the other two, I don't know. But just because I don't doesn't mean that we collectively can't identify two more to fight for to win seats.

[brooklynite]

12. So you get a majority of the Senate to eliminate the filibuster and then vote to extend the deadline

And someone goes into Court (lets agree this will go all the way to the SC) to argue that 1) you can't change the deadline after the deadline is passed and 2) even if the Senate had that ability it would require a 2/3 vote of the Senate to pass such a change on a Constitutional Amendment. What do you think the Court would do?

As for your political calculation, the last polling I saw had Demmings down by 12. That's never been a likely pickup.

[ancianita]

16. Yes.

So what. It's not as if the Democrats haven't endlessly battled in the courts from election outcomes to subpoenas to abortion rights.

Val Demings is down 2 points. "never been a likely pickup" is an undermining statement and breaks a DU rule.

[onenote]

38. I don't know what it means either. 54 is not a magic number for anything

See post #37.

[Polybius]

71. RGB said in early 2020 that we have to start over

“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.

https://www.vox.com/2020/2/11/21133029/ruth-bader-ginsburg-equal-rights-amendment-supreme-court

As much as we like the ERA, she's right.

[ancianita]

7. Worst case, with eyes on the prize, the 54 can still codify Roe while working on the ERA's status.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

9. Exactly

Lots to be resolved here…

…can a proposed amendment with a long-passed ratification deadline be resurrected and taken up where it left off?

…are states permitted to rescind ratification?

…did a rescinded ratification have to take place by the ratification date, or is it valid after that?

[ancianita]

11. I hear you. It's the problem that voting in 54 Democratic senators can deal with.

Doesn't mean that these unresolved issues derail our voting goal, which I'm sure you're not implying.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

13. Agree 100%

We need as many Democratic lawmakers as we can get. At the same time, we need to realistic about what they can do once in office.

Otherwise, when we get, for example, our 54 Dem Senators and the ERA isn’t immediately added to the Constitution, the reliable “Dems are weak and don’t fight back” contingent starts complaining that voting is useless, this depressing subsequent turnout.

I favor a “These are the x steps to getting the ERA implemented, and the first step is a minimum of 54 Dem Senators…we may find we need 67, but until we get 54, we can’t even start the process.”

[Novara]

14. Not true

A deadline is an artificial construct. There is no constitutional requirement for a deadline for a constitutional amendment. Congress has the ability to remove this deadline with legislation. The House already passed legislation to remove the deadline in 2021. We need a total of 54 Dems in the Senate in order to get past the filibuster, but believe me, it legally can be done.

[brooklynite]

17. I'm lost with this recurring "54" number

You need 50votes plus the VP. Assuming you don't have Manchin and Sinema you need 52. What's the significance of 54?

And again, what do you imagine will happen when this gets to the Supreme Court (which won't have been expanded by the Congress)?

[Novara]

18. The math is wrong. We need to overcome Manchin and Sinema and strike down the filibuster

We actually need to add two more to make it 52. If there's a tie, Kamala Harris can break it.

Right now we have 48 Dem senators willing to modify or eliminate the filibuster. That's 48 for and 52 against, since Manchin and Sinema will vote with the Rs. We really only need TWO MORE Dem Senators. That gets us to 50 for and 50 against, if Manchin and Sinema vote with the Rs to keep it. Harris would be the tie breaker.

[Fiendish Thingy]

28. DiFi is not a certain yes vote to kill the filibuster, so add one more senator to the list. Nt

[ancianita]

20. So BE lost. You come into this thread with no source links at all, and undermine it with specious

argument. Why would you do that. You're not helping at all.

[brooklynite]

22. What is specious about my argument about the Court?

I'm not undermining anything. I'm raising arguments that need to be overcome. If you want a safe information bubble around your ideas, you should indicate that up front.

[ancianita]

25. Then use sources to back you up. Start an OP of your own to source to DU how the ERA is dead.

Because so far you're not doing it here. No bubble is demanded. Just fairly sourced argument.

Or start an OP of your own and tell DU how the ERA is dead.

If you want to go there about 54 Democratic senators, don't limit yourself to Demings, go ahead and argue about how these other Democrats haven't got a shot.

https://www.racetothewh.com/senate/topten

[brooklynite]

45. from your source: Chance of flipping Parties 9%

[ancianita]

54. You read it! As least I had one to post in your non-existent OP about why the ERA is dead.

One is better than empty posts that downgrade with no citation support.

[brooklynite]

58. You know, I post things all the time...

...and people criticize things I post.

....and I respond to their critiques without complaining that they should have come up with an original point of their own.


Just a thought.

[ancianita]

59. You do.

And you've gotten your share of recs from me.

I also feel that not all critiques are fair efforts, and if you respond without complaint to those like that, you're a better poster than I am in that regard. I get tired of anyone's sound bite criticisms that show no sourcing effort when any OP poster, and not just me, has put in much more effort in their points and citations.

Your thought is duly noted.

[msfiddlestix]

24. Thank you for the clarification, and for restoring a measure of hope for me. n//t

[mcar]

19. This!

[Freddie]

21. This is powerful, may I share?

[ancianita]

23. Share away. No credit needed.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

26. A giant kick for this vitally important post!

[ancianita]

27. The ERA is NOT DEAD.

Legal and historical precedents support the argument that Congress can accept the belated ratifications by Nevada, Illinois and Virginia. In the 1921 case Dillon v. Gloss, the Supreme Court held that Article V invests Congress with a wide range of powers over proposing amendments, and in Coleman v. Miller (1939), the high court reaffirmed that the reasonableness of any ratification timeline was a political question, solely up to Congress.

In 1992, Congress accepted the 38th state ratification of the 27th Amendment — which provides that any pay raises Congress gives itself must go into effect after the next election — which was passed in 1789. That amendment did not have a ratification deadline (deadlines were not used until the Prohibition amendment and were very controversial when introduced). Still, the 27th Amendment’s passage strengthened the case that a proposed amendment’s age does not disqualify it from being ratified and accepted by Congress.

As for rescissions, Congress has never accepted them. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, granting “equal protection of the laws” to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” including former slaves. Ohio and New Jersey attempted to rescind their ratifications; Congress still counted them as ratified states and declared that the 14th Amendment was part of the Constitution. Doing so nudged the nation in a necessary direction, toward a more humane future.

Congress can replicate this scenario today by removing the deadline on ERA ratification.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/01/21/trump-administration-says-era-is-dead-arrival-it-isnt/

[Fiendish Thingy]

29. In case you hadn't noticed, stare decicis is dead - SCOTUS will rule however it wishes

And will not be bound by any silly precedents, which are considered mere historical judicial suggestions now.

[ancianita]

31. In case you hadn't noticed SCOTUS can't rescind any Amendments.

If and when Congress votes in the ratified ERA, SCOTUS will be bound by that amendment.

Only another ratified Amendment can rescind the ERA, once passed by Congress.

[Fiendish Thingy]

35. You seem sooo certain, despite the expiration date, rescinding of ratification

And the corruption of SCOTUS.

I guess we’ll know when we know.

[ancianita]

36. Since I'd guess neither of us is a constitutional lawyer or historian, at least consider this.

But with 38 state ratifications in place, future Congresses can revisit the issue of removing or ignoring the deadline.

Legal and historical precedents support the argument that Congress can accept the belated ratifications by Nevada, Illinois and Virginia. In the 1921 case Dillon v. Gloss, the Supreme Court held that Article V invests Congress with a wide range of powers over proposing amendments, and in Coleman v. Miller (1939), the high court reaffirmed that the reasonableness of any ratification timeline was a political question, solely up to Congress.

In 1992, Congress accepted the 38th state ratification of the 27th Amendment — which provides that any pay raises Congress gives itself must go into effect after the next election — which was passed in 1789. That amendment did not have a ratification deadline (deadlines were not used until the Prohibition amendment and were very controversial when introduced). Still, the 27th Amendment’s passage strengthened the case that a proposed amendment’s age does not disqualify it from being ratified and accepted by Congress.

As for rescissions, Congress has never accepted them. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, granting “equal protection of the laws” to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” including former slaves. Ohio and New Jersey attempted to rescind their ratifications; Congress still counted them as ratified states and declared that the 14th Amendment was part of the Constitution. Doing so nudged the nation in a necessary direction, toward a more humane future.

Congress can replicate this scenario today by removing the deadline on ERA ratification.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/01/21/trump-administration-says-era-is-dead-arrival-it-isnt/

[Fiendish Thingy]

53. Congress might attempt this path, but it won't be free from obstructions

We will know when we know.

[brooklynite]

46. "the Supreme Court held that...."

Now think about today's Supreme Court.

[Polybius]

72. RGB in February 2020:

“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.

https://www.vox.com/2020/2/11/21133029/ruth-bader-ginsburg-equal-rights-amendment-supreme-court

[bucolic_frolic]

30. Anything that jumpstarts our energy is a plus at this point

[ancianita]

32. I'm right there with you.

[ShepKat]

33. Would love to see that

ALL the democrats should be voted back in plus more replacing the repugn'icans. Let's work to make a landslide

repugn - to offer opposition, objection, or resistance

[ancianita]

34. You and the rest of us 81+ million who've made two blue waves so far.

[calimary]

39. Let's DO it!

Meantime, I think I noticed a “separate country” on that map. Ahhh, the South.

Since I seem to have discovered a separate country, I’m thinking it should have a name. How ‘bout Dinosauria? Because most of the thinking that’s coming from there is downright prehistoric.

[ancianita]

43. Right!

But seriously. Who cares what that country's named, let them decide. They'll probably put the word "confederacy" in there somewhere.

[calimary]

47. Okay then! The Confederate States of Dinosauria!

To codify their lizard-brain world view.

[Wounded Bear]

44. K & R...nt

[H2O Man]

50. Think back to 8th grade social studies.

An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

Accurate information is essential at this time.

[ancianita]

52. I hear you. It's the problem that voting in 54 Democratic senators can deal with.

Given that 54 isn't enough, we still see that the pressure is on for the 8 women Republican senators, and then the rest.

I'm not dreaming when I still say we can keep our eyes on that prize of 67 senators.

Thank you for the 8th grade social studies lesson.

[H2O Man]

55. I'm conversing with

the daughter of my junior high social studies teacher, who reminded me it was covered in 7th grade, not 8th! Ah, at my age, the 'ole memory ain't what it used to be.

I agree 100% with your intent, and believe it is one path that IS available. But I think it requires a fuck-load of hard work, and that it is important to ave people know exactly what is needed.

[ancianita]

56. Cool.

I was regretting that I couldn't remember if I covered that when I taught 8th grade social studies in Chicago at Wicker Park School back in the day.

I see the only fuck-ton of hard work coming from the voter side, and so far we should be encouraged that our numbers in each voting cycle increased by the millions -- almost 16 million more in 2020 than in 2016. So that's encouraging for all pragmatists who ignore numbers and lean on the old "what's possible right now" lines.

If we don't hold out an image of the battles ahead, we're less likely to engage Millennial and Z voters. So I'm always for effort posting with that in mind.

[H2O Man]

60. Many decades ago,

in our college daze, a good friend advocated for "militant pacifism." I like that. Hence, I like that the OP here advocates doing positive things wiith the goal of positive results. It's refreshing after the expected days of anger and frustration, that result in little more than howling outrage about if Ivanka had an abortion or not as a teenager. Dropping anchor there is a serious problem, a ball & chain on the Democratic Party's ability to respond to the current insanity of republicans.

I agree 100% on the need for Millenial & Z voters. I'll note that from the sum total of my experience, they favor candidates li8ke AOC. I do, too. That doesn't mean I do not support other Democrats, but it does mean that we benefit from at very least listening closely to them. Shitheads like Joe Manchin make it more difficult to say it's not true that there is no difference between some Democrats and republicans.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

57. That was my point as well

This is aspirational, and something we should be working towards. But it’s misleading to just say that 54 Dem Senators will get us the ERA.

[H2O Man]

61. Very good!

It is essential -- as you have noted -- that we have the most accurate and up-to-date information available, in order to chart our course. It is often impossible to present the entire issue in a single post, of course, but I've seen more than a bit of misinformation and disinformation on the internet since the USSC decision was handed down.

[gldstwmn]

68. I think Lisa Murkowski said she would be in favor.

[ancianita]

69. Good. You'd think the other women of the Republican side would join her.

[UTUSN]

62. K&R

[mjvpi]

63. Wonderful post. Let's have a democratic revolution.

I believe that the Constitution of the United States is constantly divinely inspired by the moral arc of Justice in the universe. Organizing and voting is how we Democrats storm the Capital.

[ancianita]

67. Yes, lets!

[gldstwmn]

65. Great post. Thanks so much.

[ancianita]

66. Thanks back.

[ancianita]

70. One more reason the ERA is not dead.

The ERA was first introduced nearly seventy-five years ago. Although some supporters have abandoned hope during the long struggle for ratification, many supporters have continued the fight
for equality.

The recent ratification of the 203-year-old Madison Amendment5 gives these supporters new reason to believe that the ERA is still alive. Originally proposed without a time limit in 1789, the requisite thirty-eight states did not ratify the Madison Amendment until 1992.6 This ratification suggests that amendments, such as.the ERA, which do not contain a textual time limit, remain valid for state ratification indefinitely.7

Although Article V gives Congress the power to propose an amendment and to determine the mode of ratification, it is silent as to Congress' power to impose time limits and Congress' role after ratification by three-fourths of the states.8 In Dillon v. Gloss,9 a unanimous Supreme Court recognized Congress' Article V power to fix a definite time limit for ratification and pointed out that Article V states that an amendment becomes part of the Constitution once it is ratified by three-fourths of the states.10

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1271&context=wmjowl