Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nevada ratifies Equal Rights Amendment decades past deadline
Las Vegas Now ^ | March 22, 2017

Posted on 03/22/2017 4:33:19 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17

CARSON CITY, Nev. - Nevada lawmakers are ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment exactly 45 years after Congress first submitted it to the states. State senators gave final approval Wednesday for Nevada to sign on to the effort set in motion by women's suffragists.

The move brings the nation two states shy -- but decades past deadline -- of amending the U.S. Constitution to plainly state women and men are equal under the law. Opponents argue it could disrupt family and military culture, and possibly lead to unfettered abortion access and funding.

The amendment required approval from 38 states to take effect. Thirty-five states ratified it by 1977. No others joined in by a 1982 cutoff date. Nine state legislatures later reconsidered the amendment. Nevada is the first to approve it after the deadline.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; US: Nevada
KEYWORDS: deadline; era; nevada; ratify
There was a time limit on the ERA's adoption. That time limit expired on March 22, 1979. Before that date, the Democrats controlling Congress voted to extend the time limit to June 30, 1982. That date was reached without three-fourths (38) of the States having ratified the ERA.

Now Liberals argue that the time limit never meant anything and so feminism can still be stamped into the Constitution. Because, after all, rules are only for Conservatives and Republicans.

1 posted on 03/22/2017 4:33:19 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17

A few states rescinded their ratifications of the ERA. And the deadline is long passed anyway. Did Nevada just do this as a symbolic action?


2 posted on 03/22/2017 4:35:53 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17

Great.

Now, repeal the 19th amendment..../S


3 posted on 03/22/2017 4:37:10 PM PDT by Vendome (I've Gotta Be Me - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH-pk2vZG2M)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17

I remember way back then, if it passed, everyone said you would have men in women’s bathrooms. Ha ha, like that would ever be allowed.


4 posted on 03/22/2017 4:39:22 PM PDT by faucetman (Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17

Correction, rules are there for liberals to punish conservatives.


5 posted on 03/22/2017 4:40:17 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Conservatives love America for what it is. Liberals hate America for the same reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17
This is nothing more than political posturing.

When Nevada's Secretary of State submits the ratification letter to the Archivist of the United States, the Archivist will return the Letter of Ratification along with a memorandum explaining that the deadline passed in 1979 and that the ratification therefore is null and void.

By the way, the federal courts killed the extension from 1979 to 1982 on the grounds that the extension was attempted using normal legislation (majority vote & presidential signature) and not the amendatory process (two thirds vote of both Houses).

To use an expression from "Star Trek," "It's dead, Jim."

6 posted on 03/22/2017 4:40:53 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Post #6. It’s just political posturing.


7 posted on 03/22/2017 4:44:25 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17

One of the problems with the ERA was that there could be no women’s athletic teams if the U.S. remained true to the wording. Women would be allowed to try out for the basketball team, for example, but few would ever make the team.

Fast forward to today. Anyone who supports separate athletic teams for males and females and also supports this transgender nonsense is a huge hypocrite.


8 posted on 03/22/2017 4:46:51 PM PDT by libertylover (In 2016 small-town America got tired of being governed by people who don't know a boy from a girl.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

It’s called virtue signalling, the left loves it.


9 posted on 03/22/2017 4:50:31 PM PDT by Shadow44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: libertylover

Bingo.

Feminists cooled their jets when they realized that women couldn’t simultaneously have their protected status with things like the draft and preferential hiring.


10 posted on 03/22/2017 4:52:43 PM PDT by Shadow44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17
Gotta be careful here...two more states just might get the idea to ratify it...then Maoist lawyers will somehow convince SCOTUS that the deadline is “unconstitutional”.
11 posted on 03/22/2017 4:56:18 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Deplorables' Lives Matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: faucetman

“I remember way back then, if it passed, everyone said you would have men in women’s bathrooms. Ha ha, like that would ever be allowed.”

Yes, I remember that, too. People were joking that some transvestite man would be granted the “right” to take a shower with highschool girls after gym class. Of course, that was ridiculous. Of course, now we know that no one even on the far left would ever be crazy enough or indecent enough to propose such a thing. Ha, ha, ha.


12 posted on 03/22/2017 4:56:48 PM PDT by Wilhelm Tell (True or False? This is not a tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
The deadline was ruled constitutional in 1920 in the Hawke decision. Prohibition was the first amendment to contain a seven year deadline. It was challenged in court, and the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional.

That horse has left the barn.

13 posted on 03/22/2017 4:58:26 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Publius
The deadline was ruled constitutional in 1920 in the Hawke decision.

The Dredd Scott Decision was ruled constitutional in 1857.

14 posted on 03/22/2017 5:04:14 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Deplorables' Lives Matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

The Court will not revisit this issue. It’s settled law.


15 posted on 03/22/2017 5:05:48 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Publius
The deadline was ruled constitutional in 1920 in the Hawke decision

Hawke v. Smith (1920) dealt a ratification could be rescinded via a referendum. The Supreme Court said no.

The cases dealing with Congress's power to put time limits on proposed amendments are Dillon v. Gloss (1921) and Coleman v. Miller (1939), the latter ruling that whether a time limit would be imposed was solely up to Congress to decide (Dillon had suggested that the courts could do so if Congress did not).

16 posted on 03/22/2017 5:19:32 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17
You're right. I've been spending so much time on the Convention of the States project that I conflated Hawke with Dillon and Coleman. Correction noted. Thanks.
17 posted on 03/22/2017 5:22:09 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

Repeal the 17th. Senators elected by State Legislature was part of ‘the Great Compromise.” 17th destroyed this.


18 posted on 03/22/2017 6:07:42 PM PDT by HapaxLegamenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson