Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Quote :

" Equal Rights Amendment Re-introduced Today This afternoon Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) re-introduced the Equal Rights Amendment. The ERA currently has 160 co-sponsors in the House, including Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-WI), Chair of the Congressional Women's Caucus. Feminist Majority President Eleanor Smeal spoke at a press conference today announcing the bill's re-introduction, stating, "Women and men deserve and need full equal rights. Without constitutional equality, too many women, and thereby too many families, are cheated. Americans overwhelmingly support constitutional equality. It is time- in fact, it's long overdue- for us to move forward. That's why the Feminist Majority and other women's organizations are this year going to score co-sponsorship of the ERA as a yes vote for constitutional equality for women; failure to co-sponsor will be on record as a vote against women's constitutional equality. It is simple as that-do you value women as full equal citizens under the law or not?" The National Organization for Women will also score whether or not a Member of Congress supports the ERA. "

http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=13073

Time to pass it.

6/29/2011 1:23:56 AM

Already passed, see Amendment XIV. That we've needed further amendments since then is a failing of our courts, but XIV section I should cover all of this.

Quote :

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

6/29/2011 8:10:19 AM

so is this another affirmative action thing companies and universities will have to deal with or what

6/29/2011 8:39:47 AM

All people are already covered under the current constitution... why do we need to add a feminazi's amendment when it's already in the constitution?

6/29/2011 8:51:37 AM

Note that neither the OP or the article itself contains the wording of the amendment.

Perhaps I should also make an amendment with undisclosed content which is apparently redundant with existing amendments and shove it in your face that you should support it or you hate all the underprivileged and discriminated in the world.

6/29/2011 11:00:46 AM

Quote :

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Does anyone else interpret this to mean that if you are under the jurisdiction of U.S. law, you are a citizen? That would make sense. It wouldn't be right if you had to obey U.S. law, but were not protected by U.S. law.

6/29/2011 11:12:26 AM

Quote :

"It wouldn't be right if you had to obey U.S. law, but were not protected by U.S. law."

Isn't that word-for-word the problem that people bring up about illegals living in the country right now?

6/29/2011 12:08:27 PM

It reads to me that illegal aliens, because they are under the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.

6/29/2011 12:08:57 PM

To me, it reads that there's no such thing as illegal aliens...to me.

6/29/2011 12:09:37 PM

Tourists are citizens.

6/29/2011 12:17:25 PM

Quote :

"It reads to me that illegal aliens, because they are under the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens."

Nope.

Quote :

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Both sides have to be met.

[Edited on June 29, 2011 at 12:22 PM. Reason : asdf]

6/29/2011 12:21:41 PM

Quote :

"Tourists are citizens."

For the duration that they're here? Sure, why not. I happen to think that the status of "citizen" shouldn't include so many benefits, but it goes back to the point made before. If you shoplift as an "illegal alien," you go through the normal court process. If someone harms you or steals from you, you shouldn't be denied protection.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to define naturalization, but personally, I think if you come here, live here, and work here, you should be afforded the same rights as anyone else. I do not think naturalization should be a process that takes years. It's only been in the last century, as people have shifted towards xenophobia, that we had to "keep people out" and make them jump through a thousand hoops.

[Edited on June 29, 2011 at 12:32 PM. Reason : ]

6/29/2011 12:21:59 PM

^ That's entirely not the way the world works as of now. Being in another country, depending on which two are involved, can both give you more rights than the citizens and deny you rights that citizens have.

Some people are sure to counter me on this one, but consider this:

You're arrested in a nation that does not grant citizens the right to remain silent have have access to attorney. Some nations suck and will still hold you to the same process a citizen would go through, but others will literally put you through a different process that typically involves calling our embassy in that nation. I highly suspect that you would keep your mouth shut about a crime you were held for, even if doing so was illegal. There are even lots of international agreements dealing with doing justice when a person breaks the law in a different country. You can make out better or worse than a local in these situations.

6/29/2011 1:03:56 PM

Quote :

"That's entirely not the way the world works as of now. Being in another country, depending on which two are involved, can both give you more rights than the citizens and deny you rights that citizens have."

Correct.

6/29/2011 1:32:35 PM

Back to the original topic of a gender based amendment, its a horrible idea.

Egalitarians don't want equality, they want equal outcomes and thats all. In any situation where someone did not receive an equal outcome as another individual this amendment could be used to either elevate one individual or stagnate another.

Moreover, I do not feel the likelihood that men and women would be defended equally under the law is great. Men will be viewed as the targets and women the enforcers of this bill. Lets get out of the sandbox, grow up, and stop playing tit for tat about everything, can we?.

6/29/2011 1:38:32 PM

I heard a comparison of the ring of people smuggling illegals in and through the nation to the Underground Railroad in the era of slavery.

I also hear frequent opinion that nationalism is the slavery of our time.

I think the picture is pretty clear here. What do people think? How does freedom of movement conflict with the freedom of exclusion? Personally, I think that if you're going to exclude people you need to do it on a smaller scale than the United States. Go ahead and build entire gated cities, I don't care. But I would rather us end this period of history where someone's rights are determined by what passport they hold.

6/29/2011 1:40:29 PM

Quote :

"I also hear frequent opinion that nationalism is the slavery of our time."

I wouldn't use that phrasing, but there certainly does seem to be a multi-tiered justice system. There's justice for regular Americans, there's reduced justice for foreigners, and there's reverse justice for the "too rich to fail."

Good example is the concept of "military tribunals," rather than trying terrorists (that originate from countries other than the United States) in domestic courts. If I blow up a building, I get tried in court, and probably sentenced to death. For some reason, though, if a Saudi does the same thing, the process is supposed to be different.

To me, the whole point of government, if it is going to exist, is to protect rights within this given area, so I'm not sure why we think there should be a separate justice system for foreigners. If it's good enough for Americans, it should be good enough for anyone else that commits a crime/has a crime committed against them here.

I would go back to the OP, but 1337 b4k4 already covered it.

[Edited on June 29, 2011 at 1:54 PM. Reason : ]

6/29/2011 1:49:12 PM

Quote :

"I heard a comparison of the ring of people smuggling illegals in and through the nation to the Underground Railroad in the era of slavery. I also hear frequent opinion that nationalism is the slavery of our time."

I happen to agree with both of those statements. Mexico is violent, dangerous place that even in better times was stricken with horrific poverty. No moral or religious person can object to the actions Mexicans take to protect their families. To turn a blind eye to the abject human suffering just miles away from us over a silly thing such as where the border is drawn is the epitome of callousness in my opinion. You could argue that we must protect ourselves first, but we're the richest nation on the planet. If we're not able to help our fellow man, who is?

Furthermore, are we really free in the United States if we have to ask permission to leave? Are we free if that permission can be denied based on our political beliefs or activities?

6/29/2011 3:01:48 PM

Quote :

"Furthermore, are we really free in the United States if we have to ask permission to leave? Are we free if that permission can be denied based on our political beliefs or activities?"

It may or may not matter. Are you free to band with others and create your own sovereignty?

6/29/2011 3:14:56 PM

A right to justice should be guaranteed to all people in the jurisdiction of the united states, regardless of citizenship. Citizenship should be required for permanent residency and should carry the burden of taxes + the right to vote/hold office.


citizenship should be easily attained by those coming to this country to contribute.

6/29/2011 3:18:37 PM