I don't foresee Americans rushing in to do the jobs undocumented immigrants are performing.

#6 | Posted by ClownShack

I'm pretty sure Elon's papers are fake. I'll take over running Twitter. Couldn't possibly do a worse job than he has.

"They're dying, Russians and Ukrainians. I want them to stop dying. And I'll have that done. I'll have that done in 24 hours." - Donald Trump May 2023

So much for "Back the blue". Trump supporters hate cops.

We have the equal protection clause and we have the 19th Amendment. I'm hard-pressed to conjure up an activity that a man can do by law that a woman cannot, from a Constitutional standpoint.
#26 | Posted by BellRinger

We have the equal protection clause and we have the 19th Amendment. I'm hard-pressed to conjure up an activity that a man can do by law that a woman cannot, from a Constitutional standpoint.

#26 | Posted by BellRinger

Why was the 19A needed since we already had 14A with the equal protection clause?

We recently saw the GOP and their packed Court strip women of their right to life saving health care.

What if the GOP is successful in their expressed desire to revise or repeal the 14th?

Plus I'm just talking about women but the ERA would include protections for men. One such example is that it is unlikely that men would still be forced to register for the draft unless women have to also.

Ultimately it doesn't matter because justice is dead in America. What the Constitution says is irrelevant. If it's text was still relevant then Trump would not eligible to hold office after he engaged in insurrection.

Dinger just doesn't want women to have equal rights. Odd, since he's in their camp with keeping trans people out of their sports.
#20 | Posted by REDIAL

I don't know how he feels about the ERA and I'm not saying that the court system wouldn't honor the 7 year limit or states rescinding ratification. I'm just pointing out that those powers are not granted by the Constitution. That said, neither is Presidential immunity but that didn't stop the Supreme Court for pulling that out of their collective ass.

5 states rescinded their initial ratification before the deadline
#18 | Posted by BellRinger

Article V only gives states the authority to ratify an amendment. It does not grant them authority to rescind such action.

It's in the text of the Amendment, making it part of the Amendment itself.
#12 | Posted by BellRinger

Wrong. The seven year statement is in the Congressional resolution proposing the amendment, not the actual amendment text.
The the text of the amendment is as follows.

"SECTION 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
"SEC. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
"SEC. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."

There is a 100% chance that this is a scam.

I'll add that it took 42 years to ratify the 19th amendment. If it took that long for the states to resolve an issue such as women's suffrage then why should congress be able to place restrictions on how long states should be able to debate matters of such importance that they require a Constitutional change to settle?

In order to become an Amendment it would have to have been ratified within 7 years. That clearly didn't happen.
#3 | Posted by BellRinger

The Constiution says nothing about a seven year limit. That is something that Congress made up and whether or not they have the right to limit the power of the states in such a way should be litigated by the courts.

Good. I try to avoid supporting China as much as possible. I support a ban on all Chinese based apps. The country engages in child and forced labor and fails to take even minimal efforts to fight sex trafficking.

Trump voters keep hoping that Trump won't actually do the things that they voted for him to do.