he Equal Rights Amendment: Unfinished Business for the Constitution
The proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) states that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution apply equally to all persons regardless of their sex. After the 19th Amendment affirming women’s right to vote was ratified in 1920, suffragist leader Alice Paul introduced the ERA in 1923 as the next step in bringing "equal justice under law" to all citizens.
In 1972, the ERA was finally passed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. The original seven-year time limit was extended by Congress to June 30, 1982, but at that deadline, the ERA had been ratified by only 35 states, three states short of the 38 required to put it into the Constitution. The ERA has been introduced into every Congress since the deadline, and beginning in 1994, ERA advocates have been pursuing two different routes to ratification:
the traditional process described in Article V of the Constitution (passage by a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, followed by ratification by three-quarters of the states), and
the innovative “three-state strategy” (ratification in three more of the 15 state legislatures that did not ratify the ERA in 1972-82, based on legal analysis that when three more states vote yes, this process could withstand legal challenge and accomplish ratification of the ERA).
by going after the equal rights to individuals they can work with Conservative princples to ratify ERA.
they could corridinate a growing voice to be heard
it is not against the rules if democrats want to make america great as well.
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
he Equal Rights Amendment: Unfinished Business for the Constitution
The proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) states that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution apply equally to all persons regardless of their sex. After the 19th Amendment affirming women’s right to vote was ratified in 1920, suffragist leader Alice Paul introduced the ERA in 1923 as the next step in bringing "equal justice under law" to all citizens.
In 1972, the ERA was finally passed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. The original seven-year time limit was extended by Congress to June 30, 1982, but at that deadline, the ERA had been ratified by only 35 states, three states short of the 38 required to put it into the Constitution. The ERA has been introduced into every Congress since the deadline, and beginning in 1994, ERA advocates have been pursuing two different routes to ratification:
the traditional process described in Article V of the Constitution (passage by a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, followed by ratification by three-quarters of the states), and
the innovative “three-state strategy” (ratification in three more of the 15 state legislatures that did not ratify the ERA in 1972-82, based on legal analysis that when three more states vote yes, this process could withstand legal challenge and accomplish ratification of the ERA).
by going after the equal rights to individuals they can work with Conservative princples to ratify ERA.
they could corridinate a growing voice to be heard
it is not against the rules if democrats want to make america great as well.
I don't know how the Left/Dems can win in 2020.There are too many people who are finally awake thanks to the Alt Right. The brown people that the Left expects to vote for them will vote Republican in huge numbers. The Dems are on their death bed.
I don't know how the Left/Dems can win in 2020.There are too many people who are finally awake thanks to the Alt Right. The brown people that the Left expects to vote for them will vote Republican in huge numbers. The Dems are on their death bed.
If the democratic party stop its three state court challenge ,
quick fix approach they could pass an amendment with added language.
this would need to be a grand bargain of a fifty state make america great solution.
If they could adopt term : sexual identity and between consenting adults. to the state 72 amendment. this could gather rbi and large bipartisan support to ratification and this generation of rights activists could change the text of the document all us citizens are sworn to protect in any public office.
If the democratic party stop its three state court challenge ,
quick fix approach they could pass an amendment with added language.
this would need to be a grand bargain of a fifty state make america great solution.
If they could adopt term : sexual identity and between consenting adults. to the state 72 amendment. this could gather rbi and large bipartisan support to ratification and this generation of rights activists could change the text of the document all us citizens are sworn to protect in any public office.
he authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.
The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.
In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.
In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.
That is right individuals have rights to actively seek the signatures at the state level to introduce legislation at the congressional level.
if independent groups can collect enough signatures with the same wording by nov ballot this can be added to the official legislation to be part of the election bond packages set in every state every year.
the states consensus of 3/4 can move congressional leaders to push for ratification at the house and senate level.
it doesn't have to trickle down it can be built up to ratification working with the conservative individualists court led by Chief Justice Roberts.
he authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.
The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.
In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.
In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.
That is right individuals have rights to actively seek the signatures at the state level to introduce legislation at the congressional level.
if independent groups can collect enough signatures with the same wording by nov ballot this can be added to the official legislation to be part of the election bond packages set in every state every year.
the states consensus of 3/4 can move congressional leaders to push for ratification at the house and senate level.
it doesn't have to trickle down it can be built up to ratification working with the conservative individualists court led by Chief Justice Roberts.
this executive activist plan would need a core group of activist common to terms with the language all grass routes supporters could derive excitement in actively promoting on a 50 state tour on knock on your neighbors door and see if they can sign petition.
this can be done in guise of the ballot initiative process. to overcome the leadership down but a coalition of leader ship down activist building up to see if congress will allow the matter to come to vote for ratification before the primary cycle of 2018.
thus allowing passage of matter in a time table of less than two years victory for the democrats.
this executive activist plan would need a core group of activist common to terms with the language all grass routes supporters could derive excitement in actively promoting on a 50 state tour on knock on your neighbors door and see if they can sign petition.
this can be done in guise of the ballot initiative process. to overcome the leadership down but a coalition of leader ship down activist building up to see if congress will allow the matter to come to vote for ratification before the primary cycle of 2018.
thus allowing passage of matter in a time table of less than two years victory for the democrats.
with the state level constitutional amendment to be constucted on an off election of public officials year expected turn out of opposition would be expected low an overall landside victory could be responded with plus 40 results expectations. to drive the legislation to be viewed by congress. during said voluteer in their hometowns approach to said initiative a local to state to federal approach could revitalize your party.
and begin to strengthen the morality of america.
Republicans could press for the congressional department of Homeland Security to prioritize protecting our most vulnerable first approach to securing homeland issues.
with the state level constitutional amendment to be constucted on an off election of public officials year expected turn out of opposition would be expected low an overall landside victory could be responded with plus 40 results expectations. to drive the legislation to be viewed by congress. during said voluteer in their hometowns approach to said initiative a local to state to federal approach could revitalize your party.
and begin to strengthen the morality of america.
Republicans could press for the congressional department of Homeland Security to prioritize protecting our most vulnerable first approach to securing homeland issues.
I don't know how the Left/Dems can win in 2020.There are too many people who are finally awake thanks to the Alt Right. The brown people that the Left expects to vote for them will vote Republican in huge numbers. The Dems are on their death bed.
this initiative can be achievable....
it passes the 4 tests is it plausible, is it an achievable goal. can it realistically be achieved with personal available. can it be watched for progress status during pending action term. is it realistic achievable goal.
I have yes checked for these considerations. how do you feel an approach for this objective if terms of the authenticity of the given variable of activist sustained in interest in perceived horizon event?
Quote Originally Posted by sundance:
I don't know how the Left/Dems can win in 2020.There are too many people who are finally awake thanks to the Alt Right. The brown people that the Left expects to vote for them will vote Republican in huge numbers. The Dems are on their death bed.
this initiative can be achievable....
it passes the 4 tests is it plausible, is it an achievable goal. can it realistically be achieved with personal available. can it be watched for progress status during pending action term. is it realistic achievable goal.
I have yes checked for these considerations. how do you feel an approach for this objective if terms of the authenticity of the given variable of activist sustained in interest in perceived horizon event?
nra policies should start protection of inner cities,
we should not lock the man up leaving the women defenseless to marauding gangs. and because they exist on public housing as a single mother they are not allowed a weapon to defend themselves.
until they are evicted by some crack head for his fix. we pay her a fixed income of 400 a year with a food stipend of 300 dollars subsidizing housing at an ideal 135. leaving with 250 after rent to cover life in an inner city.
we pay foster families 100,000 to raise four kids in areas near the inner city. ....
nra policies should start protection of inner cities,
we should not lock the man up leaving the women defenseless to marauding gangs. and because they exist on public housing as a single mother they are not allowed a weapon to defend themselves.
until they are evicted by some crack head for his fix. we pay her a fixed income of 400 a year with a food stipend of 300 dollars subsidizing housing at an ideal 135. leaving with 250 after rent to cover life in an inner city.
we pay foster families 100,000 to raise four kids in areas near the inner city. ....
The Democrats showed the way to unite the party today...by electing communist Tom Perez of La Raza as DNC chair and Muslim Brotherhood-linked Keith Ellison for DNC vice-Chairman............
A marriage made in radical leftest heaven.......sweet!
The Democrats showed the way to unite the party today...by electing communist Tom Perez of La Raza as DNC chair and Muslim Brotherhood-linked Keith Ellison for DNC vice-Chairman............
A marriage made in radical leftest heaven.......sweet!
The Democrats showed the way to unite the party today...by electing communist Tom Perez of La Raza as DNC chair and Muslim Brotherhood-linked Keith Ellison for DNC vice-Chairman............
A marriage made in radical leftest heaven.......sweet!
Looks like the fix was in again. After his speech the openly happy Buttigieg suddenly withdrew before the vote. Why would he do that? Of course the media won't ask that question.
I was hoping that Ellison was going to win but you can't have everything... Maybe next time. I saw the disgraced Brazille is still front and center. Please dems double down on the transgender rights, higher taxes, Obamacare, bigger government & fight the immigration movement with everything you got.
In 6 months when the country is off life support that the dems & BO among others put the country on, their positions will be exposed for how obviously wrong they are, since they didn't get the message from the election. Carry on, please.
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
The Democrats showed the way to unite the party today...by electing communist Tom Perez of La Raza as DNC chair and Muslim Brotherhood-linked Keith Ellison for DNC vice-Chairman............
A marriage made in radical leftest heaven.......sweet!
Looks like the fix was in again. After his speech the openly happy Buttigieg suddenly withdrew before the vote. Why would he do that? Of course the media won't ask that question.
I was hoping that Ellison was going to win but you can't have everything... Maybe next time. I saw the disgraced Brazille is still front and center. Please dems double down on the transgender rights, higher taxes, Obamacare, bigger government & fight the immigration movement with everything you got.
In 6 months when the country is off life support that the dems & BO among others put the country on, their positions will be exposed for how obviously wrong they are, since they didn't get the message from the election. Carry on, please.
They will be losing more Senate seats in 2018. They have to crash and burn before they see the light
Obviously they learned nothing with this "racist dividing" they do, and by condoning Muslim Brotherhood (a terrorist org according to the UAE), they espouse a FASCIST IDEOLOGY.
This is good news!
This is very good news Sabanesque.........
This will do nothing to unite the party..Perez who conspired with Clinton campaign to take out Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison a progressive radical Muslim ...........R.I.P. Democrat Party....
President Trump was actually very excited to hear that Perez was selected for the position.
"Congratulations to Thomas Perez, who has just
been named Chairman of the DNC. I could not be happier for him, or for
the Republican Party!
Quote Originally Posted by Sabanesque:
They will be losing more Senate seats in 2018. They have to crash and burn before they see the light
Obviously they learned nothing with this "racist dividing" they do, and by condoning Muslim Brotherhood (a terrorist org according to the UAE), they espouse a FASCIST IDEOLOGY.
This is good news!
This is very good news Sabanesque.........
This will do nothing to unite the party..Perez who conspired with Clinton campaign to take out Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison a progressive radical Muslim ...........R.I.P. Democrat Party....
President Trump was actually very excited to hear that Perez was selected for the position.
"Congratulations to Thomas Perez, who has just
been named Chairman of the DNC. I could not be happier for him, or for
the Republican Party!
Looks like the fix was in again. After his speech the openly happy Buttigieg suddenly withdrew before the vote. Why would he do that? Of course the media won't ask that question.
I was hoping that Ellison was going to win but you can't have everything... Maybe next time. I saw the disgraced Brazille is still front and center. Please dems double down on the transgender rights, higher taxes, Obamacare, bigger government & fight the immigration movement with everything you got.
In 6 months when the country is off life support that the dems & BO among others put the country on, their positions will be exposed for how obviously wrong they are, since they didn't get the message from the election. Carry on, please.
Yeah,Killer_B.. it looks like the Democratic Party didn't learn their lesson from the 2016 Presidential election...still the party of big money and not the people .....this election will only deepening of divisions in the Party not unite them..and is the start of Demexit...
This election proves, that Democrat Party has lost touch with the American people....
Quote Originally Posted by Killer_B:
Looks like the fix was in again. After his speech the openly happy Buttigieg suddenly withdrew before the vote. Why would he do that? Of course the media won't ask that question.
I was hoping that Ellison was going to win but you can't have everything... Maybe next time. I saw the disgraced Brazille is still front and center. Please dems double down on the transgender rights, higher taxes, Obamacare, bigger government & fight the immigration movement with everything you got.
In 6 months when the country is off life support that the dems & BO among others put the country on, their positions will be exposed for how obviously wrong they are, since they didn't get the message from the election. Carry on, please.
Yeah,Killer_B.. it looks like the Democratic Party didn't learn their lesson from the 2016 Presidential election...still the party of big money and not the people .....this election will only deepening of divisions in the Party not unite them..and is the start of Demexit...
This election proves, that Democrat Party has lost touch with the American people....
growing fractional splits with in the party might produce a series of events for Liberal goals to protect the most vulnerable to lead by a form of greater coalition of independents.
we have two independents in the Senate both caucus with the Democrats. King and Sanders. it is possible that other liberal established leadership could fall if not in Primary challenges then in general vs well financed centrists independent canidates.
within the platform of centered idealists Libertarians, and Green party activism could take away seats from Democrat labeled establishments.
the third party will split the vote to plurality true, but it would seem the only way to get to the leaderships ears within the centerist party inner circle of power.
Both parties in the year are in a reload the war chests for the 2018 fight for position of power of the gavels across the states legislatures, governors to over see the consensus of 2020 at new gerrymandering opportunities.
but their was nothing in that dnc election that was any different than what led to Hillary being destroyed in the general but such a like able fellow as Trump.
growing fractional splits with in the party might produce a series of events for Liberal goals to protect the most vulnerable to lead by a form of greater coalition of independents.
we have two independents in the Senate both caucus with the Democrats. King and Sanders. it is possible that other liberal established leadership could fall if not in Primary challenges then in general vs well financed centrists independent canidates.
within the platform of centered idealists Libertarians, and Green party activism could take away seats from Democrat labeled establishments.
the third party will split the vote to plurality true, but it would seem the only way to get to the leaderships ears within the centerist party inner circle of power.
Both parties in the year are in a reload the war chests for the 2018 fight for position of power of the gavels across the states legislatures, governors to over see the consensus of 2020 at new gerrymandering opportunities.
but their was nothing in that dnc election that was any different than what led to Hillary being destroyed in the general but such a like able fellow as Trump.
Washington, DC – Congresswoman Jackie Speier (CA-14) on Tuesday introduced H.J. Res. 53, a joint resolution that will remove the deadline and finally allow for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Senator Ben Cardin (D-Maryland) introduced companion legislation two weeks earlier. H.J. Res. 53 currently has 135 cosponsors.
Washington, DC – Congresswoman Jackie Speier (CA-14) on Tuesday introduced H.J. Res. 53, a joint resolution that will remove the deadline and finally allow for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Senator Ben Cardin (D-Maryland) introduced companion legislation two weeks earlier. H.J. Res. 53 currently has 135 cosponsors.
SALT LAKE CITY — Sen. Jim Dabakis, D-Salt Lake City, said he can't see why anyone would oppose his just-introduced resolution to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, 35 years after it fell three states short of becoming part of the U.S. Constitution.
"If you read the 29 words, it says neither the people of Utah nor the people of the United States will discriminate against women or against anybody as a result of sex. Who in 2017 could be opposed to that really? Nobody," Dabakis said Wednesday.
SJR10 seeks to add this statement to the Constitution: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." It also calls for Congress to remove the 1982 deadline for passage.
The ERA, first proposed in the 1920s, was passed by Congress in 1972. Thirty-eight states were needed to ratify the amendment, and by 1982, the ERA had been approved in 35 states.
But conservative backlash led by a group that later became the Eagle Forum helped defeat the amendment in Utah and other states. For the past decade, ERA supporters have been trying to revive the amendment.
Utah Eagle Forum President Gayle Ruzicka said the concerns about the amendment haven't changed.
"The amendment says men and women are exactly the same. We're not," Ruzicka said, citing instances where women should be treated differently, including when they give birth or are unable to match a man's strength.
"I appreciate the fact there are things in the law that protect me as a woman," the longtime conservative activist said. "And I certainly don’t want my daughters and granddaughters drafted into the military."
Ruzicka said women haven't been hurt because the amendment is not in the Constitution.
"The ERA was defeated, and guess what? Here we are all these years later, and women have more rights than they ever had," she said. "Women have continued to move forward."
positions op ion
SALT LAKE CITY — Sen. Jim Dabakis, D-Salt Lake City, said he can't see why anyone would oppose his just-introduced resolution to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, 35 years after it fell three states short of becoming part of the U.S. Constitution.
"If you read the 29 words, it says neither the people of Utah nor the people of the United States will discriminate against women or against anybody as a result of sex. Who in 2017 could be opposed to that really? Nobody," Dabakis said Wednesday.
SJR10 seeks to add this statement to the Constitution: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." It also calls for Congress to remove the 1982 deadline for passage.
The ERA, first proposed in the 1920s, was passed by Congress in 1972. Thirty-eight states were needed to ratify the amendment, and by 1982, the ERA had been approved in 35 states.
But conservative backlash led by a group that later became the Eagle Forum helped defeat the amendment in Utah and other states. For the past decade, ERA supporters have been trying to revive the amendment.
Utah Eagle Forum President Gayle Ruzicka said the concerns about the amendment haven't changed.
"The amendment says men and women are exactly the same. We're not," Ruzicka said, citing instances where women should be treated differently, including when they give birth or are unable to match a man's strength.
"I appreciate the fact there are things in the law that protect me as a woman," the longtime conservative activist said. "And I certainly don’t want my daughters and granddaughters drafted into the military."
Ruzicka said women haven't been hurt because the amendment is not in the Constitution.
"The ERA was defeated, and guess what? Here we are all these years later, and women have more rights than they ever had," she said. "Women have continued to move forward."
However, Dabakis, a former state Democratic Party chairman, sees the situation differently.
The senator said women continue to earn less than men, and while the ERA doesn't directly address equal pay for equal work, "it would make sure the reason it's not happening is because of discrimination."
The amendment also has symbolic value, he said, sending "a strong message in our culture that whatever happened in the past, we now accept women as full, complete and equal partners in every aspect of our lives."
Dabakis said he expects his resolution to get a hearing in the Legislature, especially after thousands of demonstrators poured into the Capitol on the first day of the session as part of women's marches held around the world.
"I don’t think that the Senate wants to be in the position of denying the 10,000 women who were here at least a hearing on a major issue to so many of them," he said.
Senate leaders did not commit to a hearing on SJR10, however.
"Personally, I don't know that we really need it," said Senate President Wayne Niederhauser, R-Sandy. He said it would be "up to the process" whether the resolution gets out of the Senate Rules Committee and assigned to a committee.
Dabakis said it is time to move beyond what he termed the "baggage" associated with the history or the ERA.
"Even the most hardened man ought to look through the eyes of his daughters and his wife and his sisters and his family," he said. "The time for fighting this battle is over."
However, Dabakis, a former state Democratic Party chairman, sees the situation differently.
The senator said women continue to earn less than men, and while the ERA doesn't directly address equal pay for equal work, "it would make sure the reason it's not happening is because of discrimination."
The amendment also has symbolic value, he said, sending "a strong message in our culture that whatever happened in the past, we now accept women as full, complete and equal partners in every aspect of our lives."
Dabakis said he expects his resolution to get a hearing in the Legislature, especially after thousands of demonstrators poured into the Capitol on the first day of the session as part of women's marches held around the world.
"I don’t think that the Senate wants to be in the position of denying the 10,000 women who were here at least a hearing on a major issue to so many of them," he said.
Senate leaders did not commit to a hearing on SJR10, however.
"Personally, I don't know that we really need it," said Senate President Wayne Niederhauser, R-Sandy. He said it would be "up to the process" whether the resolution gets out of the Senate Rules Committee and assigned to a committee.
Dabakis said it is time to move beyond what he termed the "baggage" associated with the history or the ERA.
"Even the most hardened man ought to look through the eyes of his daughters and his wife and his sisters and his family," he said. "The time for fighting this battle is over."
Illionois was not for lack of trying in 2014 di pass the senate but stalled when to be actually enacted.
This afternoon, the Illinois Senate voted 39 to 11 with 6 voting present to pass SJRCA 75,
a completely unnecessary proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to
eradicate sex as a legitimate characteristic on which to base reasonable
distinctions.
Click HERE to see how your state senator voted on this legislation, or look at the graphic below. State Senators Pam Althoff (R-McHenry), Karen McConnaughay (R-South Elgin), and Sue Rezin (R-Morris) spoke against the bill. Unfortunately, Republican leader Christine Radogno and Senator Kirk Dillard (R-Hinsdale) voted in favor of it.
The bill now moves to the Illinois House where Representative Lou Lang (D-Skokie) is the chief sponsor.
Take ACTION:Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state representative. Ask him/her to please vote against SJRCA 75. (If you have already sent an email to your state senator, please now send an email to your state representative.)
Illionois was not for lack of trying in 2014 di pass the senate but stalled when to be actually enacted.
This afternoon, the Illinois Senate voted 39 to 11 with 6 voting present to pass SJRCA 75,
a completely unnecessary proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to
eradicate sex as a legitimate characteristic on which to base reasonable
distinctions.
Click HERE to see how your state senator voted on this legislation, or look at the graphic below. State Senators Pam Althoff (R-McHenry), Karen McConnaughay (R-South Elgin), and Sue Rezin (R-Morris) spoke against the bill. Unfortunately, Republican leader Christine Radogno and Senator Kirk Dillard (R-Hinsdale) voted in favor of it.
The bill now moves to the Illinois House where Representative Lou Lang (D-Skokie) is the chief sponsor.
Take ACTION:Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state representative. Ask him/her to please vote against SJRCA 75. (If you have already sent an email to your state senator, please now send an email to your state representative.)
Hot Forum Topics
