Virginia lawmakers pass Equal Rights Amendment in historic vote

[SummerMadness]

Virginia lawmakers pass Equal Rights Amendment in historic vote

Both chambers of Virginia’s General Assembly passed the Equal Rights Amendment Wednesday, fulfilling a promise that helped Democrats seize control of the legislature and marking a watershed moment in the nearly century-long effort to add protections for women to the U.S. Constitution.

The votes capped an emotional week in which Democrats — particularly female lawmakers who now hold unprecedented positions of power in Richmond — celebrated history in the making.

The House gallery was packed beyond its 102-seat capacity, with first lady Pam Northam and her daughter Aubrey Northam making a rare appearance to bear witness.

 

[jahel]

" to add protections for women to the U.S. Constitution.”

Great moment in his tory

 

[JohnAshton]

All Christians are proud, or should be, imo, of this event.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Except it is about 40 years too late......

 

[jahel]

Too little too late for sure ... the world’s lifetime.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Except it is about 40 years too late......

Most likely, but possibly not... the deadline was only in the preamble that proposes the ERA... not in the wording of the Amendment itself, so technically, the Federal government might be able to revive it, if the Justice Department was of a mind to... but to the surprise of nobody, they're not.

 

[jahel]

Amazing the dastardly deeds left on the books of what ‘they’ could do. smh
so childish

 

[grasping the after wind]

Superfluous amendments don't excite me.

 

[The_Barmecide]

Virginia lawmakers pass Equal Rights Amendment in historic vote

Now only two more states! (Parallel activity to get the arbitrary "deadline" eliminated from 1980). Precedent from the 27th amendment which was introduced in 1789 but ratified finally in 1992.

 

[The_Barmecide]

Superfluous amendments don't excite me.

If it is superfluous why do some fight against it so much? It _should_ be superfluous but that isn't how America runs.

 

[The_Barmecide]

Except it is about 40 years too late......

Not really. Think about the history of the 27th Amendment. Introduction to final ratification about 200 years. Makes 40 years seem kinda paltry don't it?

 

[Paulos23]

Not really. Think about the history of the 27th Amendment. Introduction to final ratification about 200 years. Makes 40 years seem kinda paltry don't it?

Yup.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Not really. Think about the history of the 27th Amendment. Introduction to final ratification about 200 years. Makes 40 years seem kinda paltry don't it?

Apples and oranges my friend. ERA had a time limit assigned to it....the 27th did not. It seems reasonable to assign time limits to such things; they can always be reintroduced.

 

[The_Barmecide]

Apples and oranges my friend. ERA had a time limit assigned to it....the 27th did not. It seems reasonable to assign time limits to such things; they can always be reintroduced.

That is why there is a parallel move in Congress to remove the artificial time limit.

 

[JohnAshton]

Congress enacted the time limit, and Congress can remove it. With the Senate red, I am curious to see if the GOP senators have the gumption to remove it.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Congress enacted the time limit, and Congress can remove it. With the Senate red, I am curious to see if the GOP senators have the gumption to remove it.

They probably could if the time limit had not expired. IOW they can't pretend it is an active amendment when the time limit has expired and made it inactive. What's the problem with simply congress voting on the amendment again?.....seems simple enough.

 

[The_Barmecide]

They probably could if the time limit had not expired. IOW they can't pretend it is an active amendment when the time limit has expired and made it inactive. What's the problem with simply congress voting on the amendment again?.....seems simple enough.

Just so we know that not all Amendments are treated equally. One can take 200 years, another can't take more than 40 because...well...just because.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Just so we know that not all Amendments are treated equally. One can take 200 years, another can't take more than 40 because...well...just because.

No, not just because....because one had a time limit and the other did not....pretty simple actually.....

 

[The_Barmecide]

No, not just because....because one had a time limit and the other did not....pretty simple actually.....

Sorry, but I like justice and equality.

 

[JohnAshton]

They probably could if the time limit had not expired. IOW they can't pretend it is an active amendment when the time limit has expired and made it inactive. What's the problem with simply congress voting on the amendment again?.....seems simple enough.

The expiration means nothing, because Congress can extend it.