It's pretty sad that in this day and age we have to beg those in power to do the right thing and give equal rights to all. It shouldn't be questionable
Equal Rights isnt real equal access and treatment under the law is possible you can't make two unequal things equal just because you have feels We are morally equal and that has no impact on actual outcomes.
@@Nill757 This amendment already passed both chambers by 2/3, and has already been duly ratified by 38 states, which is 3/4, which are the requirements for becoming part of the constitution. The only hitch is a deadline for ratification in the preamble, which has been declared by constitutional scholars to be unconstitutional and invalid, and was not in the portion of the amendment ratified by the states. The ERA should have been published in 2020, after meeting all the requirements, but Trump ordered the archivist not to publish it. Biden could have ordered the archivist to publish it, but he didn't. Gillibrand was trying to get Biden to take that final action. I never said any of us could ratify anything by ourselves. That is not how our constitution works.
Sir, Mr. President, President Biden, POTUS: Call the archivist to sign and publish the ERA. Per Article 5 of the Constitution, the requirements are complete.
Women don’t want to go through a dictatorship not having Equal Rights with trump and Vance in the White House. Especially with Project 2025 bringing women back to the 1950’s under the thumb of her husband. The ERA could take a big bite out of Project 2025.
RGB was correct. It wasn't ratified by the required number of states in the time limit set by Congress. She also didn't want to have to adjudicate the the status of the five states that renounced their ratification before the 7 year limit (which Congress extended to 10) expired.
Dear President Biden: PASS THE ERA!! Order the National Archivist to publish the ERA today! Force MAGA to take it away. You pardoned yr son, now PARDON all women for the misogyny to come! PASS THE ERA NOW!!!!
@@cynthiabakke2283 in the United States, constitutional amendments are not made by Biden. They are made by 3/4,of the states, within 7 years of the proposal, else there is no amendment. US has interesting system you should read up on it sometime.
Thanks to Senator Gillibrand for her leadership and efforts. I hope President Biden sees this as possible and follows through. Because, if he does and then the Republicans try to undo it, elections will be that much easier for the Democrats to win. And, I believe, even more states would vote to ratify it, even again, to make it part of the Constitution.
I think the side effect of having women registering for military conscription will be enough to make this not such an easy win. Also even if it gets adopted that doesn’t necessarily mean abortion rights will come out of this. The supreme court will likely say that abortion restrictions can still be enacted even given the era.
@@arcanernz There is no safety for civilians in modern warfare. Look at Gaza. No one is safe from chemical, nuclear, or any kind of tactic. Should women be conscripted? Maybe. Will they have better personal defense? Probably.
The people who signed it signed it on the conditions the bill set forth claiming signatures are valid after that date is cringe and literally just motivated reasoning
@@FlawlessP401 No, it was never a..."if you get it done within a never-before-stipulated-Amendment-timeline." They signed it because they believe that women should be listed in the U.S. Constitution in the 20th century. Do you believe that women are not equal and therefore the U.S. Constitution should not be Amended as such? Tell the truth here.
@@FlawlessP401 I've had to read that sentence three times searching for its meaning. I'm guessing "My Democracy" was confounded by it as well. I think you're saying the claim of a deadline was a product of 'motivated reasoning'. There is no such deadline in the Constitution, but the National Archivist is claiming there is precedent traditionally that somehow trumps the US Constitution so they cannot publish it. The legal term for this is "bullshit".
@@eustatic3832 yeah, though in the US instead of saying well I don’t like the other party so I can do what I want, we have laws and courts to interpret them. In the US, 1921 court said no time limit was unreasonable, and Congress could set a limit 7 layers 10 years. Nobody can publish a 28th because there is none, under the law. Why don’t you find some country like Russia where you don’t have to worry about law, Vladimir.
I was furious when the Equal Rights Amendment was not approved initially. If men do not believe women are equal under the law it is time for women to start a revolution. Why is it that gender is a reason to declare women unequal. Do we still have to live in the past?
Good question.. It simple in the past , present and future the truth will still remain Men and women are not the same , this is truth Men and women are different , this truth Men and women are NOT EQUAL, THIS IS TRUTH and the truth is not bad. That why gender/sex is still use to support the truth on why men and women can NEVER BE EQUAL, YES IT IS BIOLOGY !! GOOD QUESTION
Why not try? Doing nothing is equivalent to ratifying the ERA and losing the subsequent court battle. At least if we try, there’s a chance we could win. And either way, the fight is worth having.
Because it will do FAR more harm than good just attempting it, this will give Trump a green light to do whatever the fuck he wants with the constitution
@ How? If the Supreme Court decides that the deadline in the proposing clause of the ERA is binding, we’re in the same position as now. It doesn’t open the door for Trump to do anything.
@@grumpyoldcat8302🤔 like trump really needs an excuse to do anything? He’s proven he doesn’t give a flip about norms, standards, or just plain decent behavior.
@ that doesn’t mean we should give them the provocation! Let’s NOT make it easier for him to justify his power grabs to the brainless masses who won’t bother getting the full context
Eh. I would have agreed with you until this last election. Now I truly believe there are millions of women who will willingly vote against their own best interests.
She isn’t right and she knows it, she’s just a diet republican trying to distract the democratic base for what little time we have left to prepare for Trump
Why not secure your legacy Joe? Signing and asking the archivist to PUBLISH the ERA is something you can and should ABSOLUTELY do IMMEDIATELY! Please it’s way past time.
You also have the 1st Ammendment which is currently under attack and being disregarded by the Republican Party and the Evangelical movement. These abuses are taking place without challenge, the wording of. The 1st Ammendment's declares that Freedom of Religion, Expression and liberty is individually inherent, and the government is not to support, reject and deny the rights of the people because of color, place of origin, practice of Religion or Freedom of Expression. The U.S. Government is by law prohibited in showing deference or exceptions in any way as the 1st Ammendment states. All Governmental Office holders must take "The Oath of Office," which declares that such officers sware to uphold the United States Constitution and be loyal, to it's defense and upholding the precepts and law against any attempt to deny the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land and protection of our Democracy upon which this Republic stands. If the proposition for an equal rights amendment is needed as Senator Gillibrand proposes will guarantee Women's Rights it should be passed, it will further the true intent and meaning of the First Amendment. This effort is now paramount to pass, the Equal Rights Ammendment it mirrors the true meaning and intent of the Constitution it's self.
I'm all for equality/equity, but in this day and age, I find this difficult to accept on its face. The disparity now is the result of the fact the women typically take a leading role in the care of children. As such, they often work fewer hours than male counterparts (hourly employees). For salaried jobs, the disparity now may be that women aren't as assertive is requiring higher pay to match that of male counterparts in similar positions. That is really no different than men not knowing their worth and demanding a higher salary. Employers always want to get as much work for as little pay as they possibly can. It's difficult to imagine any company would not be embroiled in litigation if it were found that every female employee was being paid 30% less than their hourly male coworkers performing the same jobs.
That statistic looks at a multi dimensional data set using only a single dimension. It is like trying to say that a cube only has one square when it in fact has 6. Women do not have a pay disparity, they have a time disparity.
It evens out when you control for differences in career choices and child-rearing. This has nothing to do with discrimination. There probably is some pay discrimination along gender lines with small businesses. However, a major employer like Walmart could never conceal a 30% pay disparity for the same job and experience.
I'm planning to retire at 59 in another country outside the US that is free, safe and very cheap with a high quality of life and good healthcare. I could fully just rely on only my SS if I wanted to when that times arrives but l'll also have at least one pension, a 403 (b) and a very prolific Investment account with my Stephanie Stiefel my FA. Retiring comfortably in the US these days is almost impossible
I know this lady you just mentioned. Stephanie Janis Stiefel is a portfolio manager and investment advisor. She gained recognition as an employee of neuberger berman; a renowned investor she is. Stephanie Janis Stiefel has demonstrated expertise in investment strategies and has been involved in managing portfolios and providing guidance to clients.
I’m planning on moving to Thailand in the next 5 years if trump’s government doesn’t do anything with the high prices of groceries and taxes What about you??
Agree and I know the issues well and I'm disappointed with Biden. I believe be did do something on this. The ERA. Biden did create VAWA. I want him to stop Trump's inauguration.
Tend to agree with the senator here. The bar has already been met, the rest isn't just paperwork, its a requirement that it be done, neither potus nor the archivest has any say as to if it ought be done. Not doing it is a dereliction of their oaths. Any doubts on the legality ought be determined by scotus, and fwiw imho the legal merits weight in favor of adoption of the era. There are no time limits on its passage.
Clarence Thomas and Alito should have recused themselves in determining that the 14th Amendment section 3. Congress should grow a spine. They also are brought by their wealthy donors who give them their marching orders. Poor people aren’t permitted to have a voice or power. God created humankind as equal in his sight. Call your congressperson and demand they step up. Jazzmin Crocket and AOC usually stand up for the people.
Doing it would be a dereliction of their oaths, as they would be blatantly violating federal law and overriding an act of Congress. *There are ABSOLUTELY time limits on its passage when Congress literally set a time limit when originally introducing it.* What an idiotic response
@@eliashe1797 under the laws of the US, there is no ERA any more to ratify. What we have instead is Senator posturing about fighting the good fight for votes, and to helll the law
For the Women...I want to say to all Women..if you're single mother,or couple..or single ..ur important is education..I mean,it's can safe you.your child..ur Parents ..or your siblings..❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ Education is not jokes...to you.. education
She is not absolutely right, the deadline was literally included in the original amendment when it was passed by Congress. It is absolutely absurd to act like it can just be ignored without an act of Congress. If you don’t know anything about the law, that’s fine, but, please, changing the constitution in such a cavalier manner will only open the way for Trump to do the same
@ it is beyond ignorant to believe the deadline is arbitrary, that’s not how the law worked. It’s imbeciles like you that brought us to this point in the first place
@@wendysuemacdonald yeah!! Wait, see he’s a duly elected president so calling for his ouster now makes … you the insurrectionist. Maybe try Russia, Vladimir.
She's right. RBG was wrong about starting over with the ERA, at least during this era. With Trump in the White House, all that will happen is that he will tell anyone who has a job to do to get the ERA signed as the 28th Amendment not to do it. Done deal. Joe Biden NEEDS to do it NOW.
First of all: Biden's "damaged legacy"? You lost me there. I have fought against and lived through my entire life of misogynist culture. ERA should've been passed millennia ago. And I agree wholeheartedly that Biden should get this done. But show some respect. NYT is circling the drain.
@@catherinehartmann1501 He pardoned his gangster son after saying many times he would not; he held on well past mental incompetence and bungled the debate, helping to lose the election; did nothing to end Gaza… So yeah, damaged legacy.
such a longshot of legal argument, especially after Skrmetti where the conservative justices were highly unsympathetic to the sex discrimination argument. they do not see discrimination where they claim differences arise that they say can justify different treatment under the law.
Like the men claiming your body my choice? When a man thinks he has that right to even say this is horrific. We need this done now. The date I am writing this is dec 30 th ,I missed all about this topic. It should of been on top of every womens lips . Dems have to work on this please. We need to make our voices a bumper sticker. Get the word out loud and clear. We have rights that men can't take away. Being equal and all. President Biden has he answered your call si,c this has been talked about? Call Kamala Harris. Get her help.
Don't forget to tell everyone abourt the 'Hayden Rider' on the ERA in the mid 20th century. Don't forget that. And discuss the arguments around this Rider.
@@maryjanevinette The Hayden Rider was introduced as an amendment to the ERA in 1948 I think. The Rider was 'to not take away any special right s that women had'. You might want to investigate.
@@maryjanevinette It didn't pass BECAUSE, rightly, is, if equality was the goal, why should there be 'special' exceptions for women? Think carefully please when you contemplate the ERA. Which doesn't include the Rider.
Lawyers study the law; presidents work around it. Kristen Gillibrand is a diet Republican sleeper agent doing her best to sow chaos and prevent the democrats from accomplishing anything of value when it comes to preparing and protecting the nation for a second Trump administration
There's a lot of acts of congress not in the constitution that are still enforced by law. The timeline will probably stand up in court, but i think it's a good idea for Biden to exercise some guts if he has them and force the Republicans to fight it in court. They might win, but it'll send a message at least and maybe even preceed a second, modern, attempt to pass it
Well, the issue of fighting it in court would be standing. The ERA wouldn't have any effect since discrimination based on sex is already illegal under the 14th Amendment, so no one would have standing to sue. It's like if Congress passed a law making it illegal for two men to marry if one of those men were under the age of 8. That law might be unconstitutional, but no one would have standing to sue since it's already illegal for anyone to marry an 8 year old.
@bubblebobble9654 I don't think so, since it doesn't have any effects. Also, it's quite possible that SCOTUS rules that yes, the amendment is ratified and is part of the constitution, including the part of the ammendment that says "shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress". So, it comes into the constitution, with the same effect as the 18th Amendment. I get that Congress can't pass a law putting a time limit on ratification, but if the time limit is part of the amendment itself, that would, of course, be constitutional, by definition. If Biden wanted to say, "I like one part of this ammendment, so it becomes a part of the constitution, but the part I don't like, is not part of the constitution" what's to stop future presidents from picking and choosing what parts of ammendment they want to consider a real part of the constitution? How would it be illegitimate for trump to say, "I don't like the part of the 14th Amendment about birthright citizenship, so I won't consider it part of the constitution"? Saying that presidents get to pick and choose what sections of the constitution are "real" is disturbing.
17:47 all those laws also apply to men. You just don't like that they impact you more because of reality. We dont legislate away the results of reality.
But the preamble can be used in court to establish the intent of the parties involved, with the preamble of the ERA making it clear the framers did not wish for the amendment to be considered for ratification after the deadline. I’m not saying I agree, but it’s an open and shut case. The ERA will be instantly struck down.
@@Dr_JSH the law is established by Congress and the Supreme Court, though many in D party deny it. Court said 1921 Dillon that Congress could set a time limit, and Congress did. Several states even reversed their ratification over the years. There is no ERA.
1. There is no longer a draft 2. Women have been serving the nation, enrolled in military for generations. 3. There’s a LOT of dangers in daily life to women - trafficking, abuse, rape. We need the ERA.
It seems to me that the time-limit requirement is unconstitutional: literally, that is not one of the requirements specified by the Constitution. As Senator Gillibrand notes, the only two requirements stated by the Constitution have been met. Thus, the ERA should be the law of the land. President Biden absolutely should instruct the Archivist to publish.
Anita Hill. Biden was head of the Senate Judiciary Committee running the Thomas confirmation hearing. He allowed for the trashing of her testimony of Thomas' active sexual harassment in Thomas' office towards her. Confirmation on TV every night by news clips that the the US officially didn't care and was willing to be blind.
If this is codified than wouldn't that mean gender based legislation is unlawful as we are all equal. Legislation that target or benefits a group based on sex would be unlawful would it not?
@@grumpyoldcat8302Because the deadline was arbitrary. There is nothing to say that deadlines apply, example of the amendment passed in 1992 is given.. 200 years have passed since it was proposed. Examine who declared (historically) that a deadline was required and whether they actually had any legitimacy to do so. Since Virginia just ratified the amendment it has met the constitutional requirements. That is all that should matter. But seemingly adherence to the Constitution seems rather weak in today's government. tRump is ineligible to hold office having participated in insurrection unless that impediment is removed by a 2/3rds vote. We don't see him being stopped there, do we? Ratify it. DO IT. Let it play out in court. Can you honestly say that it is OK for women to have no privacy? To have no control over our own bodies? Would men stand for this? No. They would not. So, if we can't have equal rights for women, perhaps women need to start demanding/taking rights away from men.
@@lamoinette23there is a HUGE difference between the 27th amendment and the ERA: *Congress established the deadline to pass it as part of the original proposal for the amendment,* while the 27th amendment had no deadline implemented to begin with. I’ll never understand how people can be so ignorant as to argue the deadline with the ERA is arbitrary or being up the 27th amendment like it IN ANY WAY applies to this situation. And not ONCE did I claim not to support the ERA, so you can go ahead and quit that bullshit. Just because I acknowledge that attempting to force it now would do more harm than good doesn’t mean I don’t care about equal rights. How fucking dare you insinuate otherwise?
I find it remarkable that I find no awareness in this conversation of the recent concern about preserving exclusive rights of women, that is, with putatively benign discrimination between men and women and about the question of the definition of woman raised by transgender ideology, all of which Trump exploited so effectively in getting elected. The recent election revealed what everyone knew, which is that a vast majority think that the categories of man and woman are defined by reproductive biology and not by self-identification and want sports and certain other spaces to allow segregation based on sex or at least take sex into account as the military still does in performance testing. Biden's handlers know this and don't want Democrats to challenge that majority. As they depart, the Biden admin recently withdrew their prposed rule defining sex in Title IX to include gender identity. The fact that this issue was not even hinted at in this discussion, at the very least as a problem that proponents of resurrecting the old ERA can ignore and leave to the courts, should be annoying to liberals who want the trans muzzle removed from political discourse (Seth Moulton). In my liberal opinion the old ERA is as archaic as Phyllis Schafly's concern about lesbian marriage but not about other forms of sex segregation. People resurrecting the ERA should want to hear what LGB Alliance and Kara Dansky think. They are feminists. Maybe they think the courts can fix these problems, that is, allow separate but equal to be ok for sex but not for race or think the courts will define 'sex' for the people, that it's not needed in legislation. Maybe they don't. Maybe the courts will regard separate but equal as wrong for sex as for race. Do we want that? I'm sure the Senator from New York has thought about all this and puts this on the list of things that lawyers and judges will figure out for the masses after the ERA gets published but doesn't want this spoken of now. This member of the masses doesn't think that's a good idea. I don't think President Biden does either.
The 1972 Equal Rights Amendment contains within itself an ‘expiration’ date; e.g., a date (seven years after Congress passed the enabling legislation) by which the required number of states (38) had to ratify or the amendment would be void. Before that deadline expired, Congress voted to extend it to 1982. That came and went without ratification by the required number of states. There is abundant caselaw and an opinion from the Office of Legal Council of the Department of Justice that after the expiration of that deadline Congress has no power to extend the deadline. Congress is vested with wide discretion in the drafting of procedures relating to constitutional amendments. The 18th and 20th through 27th amendments all had seven year deadlines. There is no legal means by which the ERA can be revived, and certainly not by a magic phone call from Joe Biden. We would do well to focus our efforts on more productive endeavors, rather than trying to balm egos wounded by a vote of the people 42 years ago.
By your logic, the 27th failed ratification and is invalid. But I think you make a bigger point. Lots of other countries, Japan among them, and U.S. states, have equal rights by gender expressly granted in their constitutions. With the election of so many Republicans to Congress that a new bill renewing the ERA did not pass, and now the election of Donald Trump, Americans have spoken. Maybe some women should have equal rights, but not all American women. They're not ready. Until they're ready to mobilize and give 38 states Democratic majorities again, American women will have to suffer under the legal regime a Christian minority prefers. In support of your argument, a few of those Christians sit on the US Supreme Court, and their 6-3 majority would absolutely reject this 28th Amendment move. They would absolutely lean on that deadline argument. Whether language in a preamble is stronger than historical practice and the Constitution's express terms is beside the point if 6 justices hold that plain preference. In that sense, you're right. But if you wanted to kick start a movement to enact a new ERA, wouldn't a bit of desperate effort help? If nothing else, it would clear the slate and clarify that activists need to start over. It might also reveal to all that this court does not embrace gender equality. That's a pretty good basis for popular organizing. Why not?
So ERA'S deadline is unique to the extent that it is not part of the text of the amendment. The other amendments incorporated ratification deadlines into the text of the amendment. The rationale for publishing the ERA now is: 1) State ratification is permanent...it cannot be rescinded. Similarly, as the expiration is not explicitly part of the text of the amendment, the ability of the Congress to enforce the deadline is debatable. 2) There is precedent for the ratification of dormant amendments...the ratification effort for the now-ratified 27th Amendment was dormant for nearly two centuries. The ERA should have been a slam dunk 40 years...Phyllis Schlafley was a despicable human being.
@@波紋小石the 27th amendment didn’t have an established timeline to begin with. You’re just admitting to being too stupid to google any of this by bringing it up.
l What branch were you forced to serve in? For me, it was the Navy. I don't have a problem with this, since it's not active and hasn't been for a long time. We have an all volunteer military.
My support for the ERA aside, Kirstin Gillibrand assumes that Justice Ginsburg knew NOTHING about politics, and that the National Archivist (who holds a doctorate from Yale) knows NOTHING about the law. I would argue that there's plenty of political savvy that goes into getting on the Supreme Court, and that the National Archivist probably knows more about the law than one might think. Senator Gillibrand, on the other hand, is pretty ineffective at both.
Biden doesn't really take meetings. It's not specific to this issue. Also, ERA won't overturn Dobbs. The idea that laws are not allowed to regulate any issues that have biological asymmetry is patently absurd. There would be so many ways in which that would backfire. Furthermore, just look at the logic in Loving v Virginia (interracial marriage). Even though banning interracial marriage restricted all races equally relative to each other, the test for discrimination came down to the idea that a white man could marry a white woman but a black man could not marry a white woman. There are other tests too, but in this case, both men and women are banned from getting abortions. Would have to prove that the purpose of this law is to target women, and not in the actual interests of preventing abortion for its own sake.
Even without ERA, the abortion issue is clearly discriminatory on the female sex in accessing beneficial healthcare. This has to stop. Men don't have to jump though hoops or given absurd blackout periods to get their healthcare needs met. They are allowed to travel anywhere they like for healthcare; not so for pregnant individuals. Men aren't being turned away from maternity hospitals due to reproductive complications and they certainly aren't denied getting contraceptive or sterilization tech. Men don't have to worry about the lack of reproductive health specialists leaving in droves. Men aren't worrying about escalating costs and the declining quality of reproductive care. Oh, and the most enduring truism of all: men don't fear getting pregnant and risk dying in childbirth. The still USA has the worst maternal mortality rate among all developed nations. It's a health epidemic and an humanitarian issue. Call it what it is: state-assisted MATRICIDE.
Even without the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), the issue of abortion is unequivocally discriminatory against women and those who can become pregnant, denying them equitable access to essential healthcare. This systemic discrimination must end. Consider the stark contrast: men do not face arbitrary restrictions, invasive scrutiny, or absurd blackout periods when seeking medical care. They are free to travel wherever they wish for healthcare services. Pregnant individuals, on the other hand, may be legally obstructed from doing so, depending on where they reside and the nature of their medical needs. This disparity is glaring. Moreover, men are not turned away from hospitals due to complications with their reproductive health, nor are they denied access to contraception or sterilization procedures. They do not face opposition to the mere existence of reproductive healthcare facilities tailored to their needs. Meanwhile, those seeking reproductive care-including abortion-are often met with closed clinics, dwindling numbers of specialists, and rising barriers to access as an alarming number of professionals leave the field altogether. The financial burden is no less severe. Those dealing with reproductive health challenges are grappling with escalating costs and declining quality of care, exacerbated by strict regulations and reduced availability of providers. This is in stark contrast to the largely unobstructed access men enjoy for their own healthcare needs. And of course, the most enduring, undeniable truth remains: men do not face the biological reality of pregnancy. They do not carry the fear of potential complications during pregnancy or childbirth, nor the risk of dying as a result. The United States has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed nations-a fact that should alarm and outrage us all. This is not just a public health crisis; it is a humanitarian issue. The failure to address this problem, compounded by state-level restrictions on abortion and other reproductive care, amounts to nothing less than state-sanctioned harm against women and pregnant individuals. Call it by its name: this is *state-assisted matricide.*
Yes, yes it can. Biden can authorize the activation of the EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT. DO IT, JOE - FOR THE SAKE OF THE WOMEN AND GIRL CHILDREN IN AMERICA, GIVE US RIGHTS.
It would instantly be struck down by the courts and would open the way for Trump to make all sorts of changes to the constitution. People like you are destroying this country with your stupidity
Here's one that might actually work. Propose an amendment to repeal the 22nd amendment and do away with the electoral college at the same time. Trump would love the idea of getting another term and he would convince himself that he could win a popular vote. Republican legislatures would be pressured by MAGA to go along. It's probably the only chance we have of getting rid of the electoral college. It's worth trying.
GOD NO! Are you kidding? How is allowing Trump a path to president for life IN ANY WAY worth eliminating the electoral college? In case you forgot, *Trump DID win the popular vote in 2024.*
@ okay, and? Your whole argument is based around the idea that he can’t win the popular vote, but that was proven false. It is a foolish plan that would only make it easier for Trump to become the dictator of his dreams
My guess is that he has already decided whether he will or not. (I wouldn't be surprised if Jill has applied a bit of moral suasion). In any event, if he has chosen to authorize the publishing of the ERA, it will be on January 19...it will be his final act.
You people make me laugh. You are all coming out with demands and ideas yet when it was time to do the one important thing i.e. vote, you could not be bothered. Its clear that you have not learnt anything yet. How many of you actively engage your representatives? Its funny how you are now demanding that the "grandpa" do something before he leaves office? Why not petition those who will be coming in January?
@grumpyoldcat8302 Yes but there are only 100 senators, many of which hold office longer than the president. Like how many of them would want a personal meeting, 35 at max over 4 years? Doesn't seem to far off. I rather had the impression that they are deliberately kept at a distance for show of power or whatever other reasons.
It would be an idiotic waste of resources at a time when he should be doing so much more. It’s ridiculous there are STILL federal positions vacant after years of being left open by Biden.
It's not being done "half-assed" - if you were to review the history of the Equal Rights Amendment you will see that it went through the "proper" process of passage by the House and by the Senate - in fact, it was originally passed very smoothly and quickly - and then the "proper" process of ratification in state after state legislature. Just as happens with other amendments, once the 38th state ratified the process should be wrapped up with the amendment being "published" to the Constitution. Nothing half-assed about it.
@@vdk9797 One state changed its mind before the deadline. There was no precedent for this. When it didn't reach 38 by the deadline, Congress extended the deadline. While such a deadline is not specifically called for by the Constitution, that is the amendment that Congress and 37 states voted for. To say "Just ignore all that" is as half-assed as it gets. More importantly, it leaves a lot of people thinking you cut corners, or even that you cheated, and therefore it's okay if they do the same.
Exactly. If the ERA has overwhelming support, pass it through Congress and run it through the states again. Most certainly, it'll be passed easily....yes? Well, I guess not since they're trying this trickery so....I guess they're 'not so sure' it has overwhelming support.
It's pretty sad that in this day and age we have to beg those in power to do the right thing and give equal rights to all. It shouldn't be questionable
Equal Rights isnt real equal access and treatment under the law is possible you can't make two unequal things equal just because you have feels
We are morally equal and that has no impact on actual outcomes.
They didn't get to be in power by doing the right thing. Why would you expect them to?
@@FlawlessP401 Who do you think is going to take you seriously? You made a statement with absolutely zero facts and you can hardly write.
@ThatBoiChrist facts no longer matter as shown, a 34 count convicted felon and racist got elected president. Democracy is a wonderful thing
@@FlawlessP401Why are you talking? That's not a lot better than total gibberish.
ERA now!!! I've been saying this for years. So excited to hear senator Gillibrand has been working so hard on this.
I'm 66. It's been up for debate my entire life. Would be nice if it passed before I died.
@@Dragondaughter9 Me too! I'm 79 - years to go ??? Hurry up please. ❤❤❤
th-cam.com/users/live-s3IVfNC6ik
@@DragonLadyWithFriends there’s the law, and there’s Senator whoever, who can no more ratify amendments than you can.
@@Nill757 This amendment already passed both chambers by 2/3, and has already been duly ratified by 38 states, which is 3/4, which are the requirements for becoming part of the constitution. The only hitch is a deadline for ratification in the preamble, which has been declared by constitutional scholars to be unconstitutional and invalid, and was not in the portion of the amendment ratified by the states.
The ERA should have been published in 2020, after meeting all the requirements, but Trump ordered the archivist not to publish it.
Biden could have ordered the archivist to publish it, but he didn't. Gillibrand was trying to get Biden to take that final action.
I never said any of us could ratify anything by ourselves. That is not how our constitution works.
Sir, Mr. President, President Biden,
POTUS: Call the archivist to sign and publish the ERA.
Per Article 5 of the Constitution, the requirements are complete.
Women don’t want to go through a dictatorship not having Equal Rights with trump and Vance in the White House. Especially with Project 2025 bringing women back to the 1950’s under the thumb of her husband. The ERA could take a big bite out of Project 2025.
RGB was correct. It wasn't ratified by the required number of states in the time limit set by Congress. She also didn't want to have to adjudicate the the status of the five states that renounced their ratification before the 7 year limit (which Congress extended to 10) expired.
@@luddite4change449 yes. Unfortunately more than a few Dems now don’t care about laws of the US as held by the court, unless they already agree w it.
@@Ashphinchtersayswhat they don’t care.
Dear President Biden: PASS THE ERA!! Order the National Archivist to publish the ERA today! Force MAGA to take it away. You pardoned yr son, now PARDON all women for the misogyny to come! PASS THE ERA NOW!!!!
@@cynthiabakke2283 in the United States, constitutional amendments are not made by Biden. They are made by 3/4,of the states, within 7 years of the proposal, else there is no amendment. US has interesting system you should read up on it sometime.
Thank you Senator Gillibrand for your advocacy on this most urgent matter!
Do it Joe just do IT.....
th-cam.com/users/live-s3IVfNC6ik
Biden absolutely must do this!
This is a no brainer.
th-cam.com/users/live-s3IVfNC6ik
@sayulitalyfe5299
Speaking of no brains lol how's it going there buddy?
Thanks to Senator Gillibrand for her leadership and efforts. I hope President Biden sees this as possible and follows through. Because, if he does and then the Republicans try to undo it, elections will be that much easier for the Democrats to win. And, I believe, even more states would vote to ratify it, even again, to make it part of the Constitution.
I think the side effect of having women registering for military conscription will be enough to make this not such an easy win. Also even if it gets adopted that doesn’t necessarily mean abortion rights will come out of this. The supreme court will likely say that abortion restrictions can still be enacted even given the era.
@ why shouldn’t women register for military conscription?
@@arcanernz SO? An what would be wrong with that? Women already serve in the military.
@@sharontabor7718 voluntary and forced conscriptions are not the same.
@@arcanernz There is no safety for civilians in modern warfare. Look at Gaza. No one is safe from chemical, nuclear, or any kind of tactic. Should women be conscripted? Maybe. Will they have better personal defense? Probably.
Just declare the deadline not relevant, and publish it. Republicans are already taking away the 14th, why pretend that slavers care about process?
The people who signed it signed it on the conditions the bill set forth claiming signatures are valid after that date is cringe and literally just motivated reasoning
@@FlawlessP401 No, it was never a..."if you get it done within a never-before-stipulated-Amendment-timeline." They signed it because they believe that women should be listed in the U.S. Constitution in the 20th century. Do you believe that women are not equal and therefore the U.S. Constitution should not be Amended as such? Tell the truth here.
The 19th Amendment removal is all in their Project 2025. The rest of Rights removal is easy after they removed first.
🙏🏻🇺🇸⚖️💙🩺🗽🕊️
@@FlawlessP401 I've had to read that sentence three times searching for its meaning. I'm guessing "My Democracy" was confounded by it as well. I think you're saying the claim of a deadline was a product of 'motivated reasoning'. There is no such deadline in the Constitution, but the National Archivist is claiming there is precedent traditionally that somehow trumps the US Constitution so they cannot publish it. The legal term for this is "bullshit".
@@eustatic3832 yeah, though in the US instead of saying well I don’t like the other party so I can do what I want, we have laws and courts to interpret them. In the US, 1921 court said no time limit was unreasonable, and Congress could set a limit 7 layers 10 years. Nobody can publish a 28th because there is none, under the law. Why don’t you find some country like Russia where you don’t have to worry about law, Vladimir.
I was furious when the Equal Rights Amendment was not approved initially. If men do not believe women are equal under the law it is time for women to start a revolution. Why is it that gender is a reason to declare women unequal. Do we still have to live in the past?
Good question.. It simple in the past , present and future the truth will still remain
Men and women are not the same , this is truth
Men and women are different , this truth
Men and women are NOT EQUAL, THIS IS TRUTH
and the truth is not bad.
That why gender/sex is still use to support the truth on why men and women can NEVER BE EQUAL, YES IT IS BIOLOGY !!
GOOD QUESTION
4B.
@@charleverette130 Honest question: How does the 4B movement work to create equal protection?
th-cam.com/users/live-s3IVfNC6ik
According to Project 2025, women’s rights will be taken away and she’ll be under control by her husband.😡🥺
WHY IS THIS SO FRICKEN HARD FOR BIDEN?????! THIS IS A NO BRAINER! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! BIDEN AND DEMOCRATS - JUST DO YOUR DUTY AND JOBS! 😤 😡 💔 🥺
Girl get it together and take it to the streets they're not gonna hear you in the comments section 😭
That would be because he’s a centrist and which is basically one step removed from republican
@@nawkea6478 in he United States, Biden doesn’t get to make amendments. Why not go try UPPERCASE insurrection in some other country.
Why not try? Doing nothing is equivalent to ratifying the ERA and losing the subsequent court battle. At least if we try, there’s a chance we could win. And either way, the fight is worth having.
Because it will do FAR more harm than good just attempting it, this will give Trump a green light to do whatever the fuck he wants with the constitution
Also, what would the ERA do? It's already illegal for the government to discriminate based on sex under the 14th.
@ How? If the Supreme Court decides that the deadline in the proposing clause of the ERA is binding, we’re in the same position as now. It doesn’t open the door for Trump to do anything.
@@grumpyoldcat8302🤔 like trump really needs an excuse to do anything? He’s proven he doesn’t give a flip about norms, standards, or just plain decent behavior.
@ that doesn’t mean we should give them the provocation! Let’s NOT make it easier for him to justify his power grabs to the brainless masses who won’t bother getting the full context
Do ot NOW, while sanity is in place. If the Big Rump has his way, woman (even the beloved MAGAs) will lose rights and places in society.
Schlafly was a friend of my mother. Politicians often mask their real feelings and beliefs to advance their cause - not her - she WAS that crazy.
Imagine if we had a popular referendum on this issue-you’d see the highest turnout in the history of this country.
Too bad the constitution has no system in place for a popular referendum on constitutional amendments
@@grumpyoldcat8302
Yeah, that does suck
@grumpyoldcat8302 not too bad. Good. Cultural crybabies who think everyone is the same and needs to be treated the same all the time is exhausting
Eh. I would have agreed with you until this last election. Now I truly believe there are millions of women who will willingly vote against their own best interests.
Uh x, 8 z
Interesting to be reminded of what RBG said about this. I also appreciate Gillibrand’s response. I would love to think she is right.
She isn’t right and she knows it, she’s just a diet republican trying to distract the democratic base for what little time we have left to prepare for Trump
Why not secure your legacy Joe? Signing and asking the archivist to PUBLISH the ERA is something you can and should ABSOLUTELY do IMMEDIATELY! Please it’s way past time.
Please do Mr. President!!!! We beg you.
You also have the 1st Ammendment which is currently under attack and being disregarded by the Republican Party and the Evangelical movement. These abuses are taking place without challenge, the wording of. The 1st Ammendment's declares that Freedom of Religion, Expression and liberty is individually inherent, and the government is not to support, reject and deny the rights of the people because of color, place of origin, practice of Religion or Freedom of Expression.
The U.S. Government is by law prohibited in showing deference or exceptions in any way as the 1st Ammendment states. All Governmental Office holders must take "The Oath of Office," which declares that such officers sware to uphold the United States Constitution and be loyal, to it's defense and upholding the precepts and law against any attempt to deny the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land and protection of our Democracy upon which this Republic stands.
If the proposition for an equal rights amendment is needed as Senator Gillibrand proposes will guarantee Women's Rights it should be passed, it will further the true intent and meaning of the First Amendment. This effort is now paramount to pass, the Equal Rights Ammendment it mirrors the true meaning and intent of the Constitution it's self.
Biden should order the Archive to finish the paperwork for the ERA.
C’mon Joe! Make it so!!
Equal Right = equal pay. Woman make 30% less than men for the same or better performance and job duties.
Or lesser.
I'm all for equality/equity, but in this day and age, I find this difficult to accept on its face. The disparity now is the result of the fact the women typically take a leading role in the care of children. As such, they often work fewer hours than male counterparts (hourly employees). For salaried jobs, the disparity now may be that women aren't as assertive is requiring higher pay to match that of male counterparts in similar positions. That is really no different than men not knowing their worth and demanding a higher salary. Employers always want to get as much work for as little pay as they possibly can. It's difficult to imagine any company would not be embroiled in litigation if it were found that every female employee was being paid 30% less than their hourly male coworkers performing the same jobs.
That statistic looks at a multi dimensional data set using only a single dimension. It is like trying to say that a cube only has one square when it in fact has 6. Women do not have a pay disparity, they have a time disparity.
It evens out when you control for differences in career choices and child-rearing. This has nothing to do with discrimination. There probably is some pay discrimination along gender lines with small businesses. However, a major employer like Walmart could never conceal a 30% pay disparity for the same job and experience.
@ expecially since it’s already illegal since 1963
I'm planning to retire at 59 in another country outside the US that is free, safe and very cheap with a high quality of life and good healthcare. I could fully just rely on only my SS if I wanted to when that times arrives but l'll also have at least one pension, a 403 (b) and a very prolific Investment account with my Stephanie Stiefel my FA. Retiring comfortably in the US these days is almost impossible
I know this lady you just mentioned. Stephanie Janis Stiefel is a portfolio manager and investment advisor. She gained recognition as an employee of neuberger berman; a renowned investor she is. Stephanie Janis Stiefel has demonstrated expertise in investment strategies and has been involved in managing portfolios and providing guidance to clients.
I’m planning on moving to Thailand in the next 5 years if trump’s government doesn’t do anything with the high prices of groceries and taxes
What about you??
Been debt free for two years thanks to Stephanie Janis Stiefel. So sad to see my friends in their 40s with car loans, mortgages and credit card debt.
Please stop gentrifying countries
How can i reach Stephanie if you don't mind me asking?
Heard she’s an IA.
This was like watching Southpark 😅
Thank you!!
Thank you. Wouldn’t it be absolutely great if Biden signed this Amendment. 💕
Join us at the National Archives Saturday December 28th at 9:30am to urge President Biden to PUBLISH THE ERA!
If I was younger I would’ve been there.
Biden! Pick up the phone!!!!
Agree and I know the issues well and I'm disappointed with Biden. I believe be did do something on this. The ERA. Biden did create VAWA. I want him to stop Trump's inauguration.
Tend to agree with the senator here.
The bar has already been met, the rest isn't just paperwork, its a requirement that it be done, neither potus nor the archivest has any say as to if it ought be done.
Not doing it is a dereliction of their oaths.
Any doubts on the legality ought be determined by scotus, and fwiw imho the legal merits weight in favor of adoption of the era.
There are no time limits on its passage.
Clarence Thomas and Alito should have recused themselves in determining that the 14th Amendment section 3.
Congress should grow a spine. They also are brought by their wealthy donors who give them their marching orders. Poor people aren’t permitted to have a voice or power. God created humankind as equal in his sight. Call your congressperson and demand they step up. Jazzmin Crocket and AOC usually stand up for the people.
Doing it would be a dereliction of their oaths, as they would be blatantly violating federal law and overriding an act of Congress. *There are ABSOLUTELY time limits on its passage when Congress literally set a time limit when originally introducing it.* What an idiotic response
@@eliashe1797 under the laws of the US, there is no ERA any more to ratify. What we have instead is Senator posturing about fighting the good fight for votes, and to helll the law
Thanks for your time and research you rock!
For God's sake, just DO IT already!!
This is amazingly Stupid!
Make this happen president Biden!
@@earlrobinson4525 who are you talking to? His brain switched off for the last time in 2020.
For the Women...I want to say to all Women..if you're single mother,or couple..or single ..ur important is education..I mean,it's can safe you.your child..ur Parents ..or your siblings..❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ Education is not jokes...to you..
education
Senator Gillibrand is absolutely right! How do we get this done?
She is not absolutely right, the deadline was literally included in the original amendment when it was passed by Congress.
It is absolutely absurd to act like it can just be ignored without an act of Congress.
If you don’t know anything about the law, that’s fine, but, please, changing the constitution in such a cavalier manner will only open the way for Trump to do the same
@ - The deadline was arbitrary. Failing to take action out of fear that “Trump will just undo it” is cowardly.
@ it is beyond ignorant to believe the deadline is arbitrary, that’s not how the law worked. It’s imbeciles like you that brought us to this point in the first place
Women need to stand up for themselves until that happens. There's screwed.
Trump takes over on January 20th.
Trump isn’t qualified to be the President.
Just impeach DJT or out the insurrectionist ...
@@wendysuemacdonald yeah!! Wait, see he’s a duly elected president so calling for his ouster now makes … you the insurrectionist. Maybe try Russia, Vladimir.
She's right. RBG was wrong about starting over with the ERA, at least during this era. With Trump in the White House, all that will happen is that he will tell anyone who has a job to do to get the ERA signed as the 28th Amendment not to do it. Done deal. Joe Biden NEEDS to do it NOW.
Try for a meeting with Jasmine Crocket!!!! She may have a connection with Kamala, VP
PUBLISH 🙏🙌
First of all: Biden's "damaged legacy"? You lost me there. I have fought against and lived through my entire life of misogynist culture. ERA should've been passed millennia ago. And I agree wholeheartedly that Biden should get this done. But show some respect. NYT is circling the drain.
@@catherinehartmann1501 He pardoned his gangster son after saying many times he would not; he held on well past mental incompetence and bungled the debate, helping to lose the election; did nothing to end Gaza… So yeah, damaged legacy.
Great video
Yessss!!!!
Just do it!
such a longshot of legal argument, especially after Skrmetti where the conservative justices were highly unsympathetic to the sex discrimination argument. they do not see discrimination where they claim differences arise that they say can justify different treatment under the law.
Like the men claiming your body my choice? When a man thinks he has that right to even say this is horrific. We need this done now. The date I am writing this is dec 30 th ,I missed all about this topic. It should of been on top of every womens lips . Dems have to work on this please. We need to make our voices a bumper sticker. Get the word out loud and clear. We have rights that men can't take away. Being equal and all. President Biden has he answered your call si,c this has been talked about? Call Kamala Harris. Get her help.
GOOD LUCK WITH THAT POLICY MISS GILIBRAND..🤔🥺😢🤨😡🙏🌏🙏🏾👍🏾👏🏾🔥💥🙏🏾💯🎀.
PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!
Don't forget to tell everyone abourt the 'Hayden Rider' on the ERA in the mid 20th century. Don't forget that. And discuss the arguments around this Rider.
? 'Splain . . .
@@maryjanevinette The Hayden Rider was introduced as an amendment to the ERA in 1948 I think. The Rider was 'to not take away any special right s that women had'. You might want to investigate.
@@maryjanevinette It didn't pass BECAUSE, rightly, is, if equality was the goal, why should there be 'special' exceptions for women? Think carefully please when you contemplate the ERA. Which doesn't include the Rider.
@DrGingerHamster i remember that.
Keep dreaming. The time has expired for the ERA, it has to start from scratch now.
Lawyers write briefs; presidents make history.
Lawyers study the law; presidents work around it.
Kristen Gillibrand is a diet Republican sleeper agent doing her best to sow chaos and prevent the democrats from accomplishing anything of value when it comes to preparing and protecting the nation for a second Trump administration
How does a senator not have the ear of the president? Are we keeping him in bubble wrap now?
c'mon joe. you already lost the election so what is the problem? publish the ERA amendment already.
@@dom11949 you’ll look all over the constitution and not find a word in A2 that says a Pres has authority to make law by “publishing” something.
There's a lot of acts of congress not in the constitution that are still enforced by law. The timeline will probably stand up in court, but i think it's a good idea for Biden to exercise some guts if he has them and force the Republicans to fight it in court. They might win, but it'll send a message at least and maybe even preceed a second, modern, attempt to pass it
Well, the issue of fighting it in court would be standing. The ERA wouldn't have any effect since discrimination based on sex is already illegal under the 14th Amendment, so no one would have standing to sue.
It's like if Congress passed a law making it illegal for two men to marry if one of those men were under the age of 8. That law might be unconstitutional, but no one would have standing to sue since it's already illegal for anyone to marry an 8 year old.
@@parker9012 do you think a state that voted against adoption of the amendment might have standing in a suit brought by their secretary of state?
@bubblebobble9654 I don't think so, since it doesn't have any effects. Also, it's quite possible that SCOTUS rules that yes, the amendment is ratified and is part of the constitution, including the part of the ammendment that says "shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress". So, it comes into the constitution, with the same effect as the 18th Amendment.
I get that Congress can't pass a law putting a time limit on ratification, but if the time limit is part of the amendment itself, that would, of course, be constitutional, by definition.
If Biden wanted to say, "I like one part of this ammendment, so it becomes a part of the constitution, but the part I don't like, is not part of the constitution" what's to stop future presidents from picking and choosing what parts of ammendment they want to consider a real part of the constitution? How would it be illegitimate for trump to say, "I don't like the part of the 14th Amendment about birthright citizenship, so I won't consider it part of the constitution"?
Saying that presidents get to pick and choose what sections of the constitution are "real" is disturbing.
17:47 all those laws also apply to men. You just don't like that they impact you more because of reality. We dont legislate away the results of reality.
The deadline for the ERA was written in the preamble.
Preambles are never considered law.
But the preamble can be used in court to establish the intent of the parties involved, with the preamble of the ERA making it clear the framers did not wish for the amendment to be considered for ratification after the deadline.
I’m not saying I agree, but it’s an open and shut case. The ERA will be instantly struck down.
@@grumpyoldcat8302. No other Amendment had a deadline, so there is wiggle room under the law.
@@Dr_JSH the law is established by Congress and the Supreme Court, though many in D party deny it. Court said 1921 Dillon that Congress could set a time limit, and Congress did. Several states even reversed their ratification over the years. There is no ERA.
I thought the 28th amendment would for sure either be A. Change the national anthem to "YMCA or B. allow the option to co-marry your daughter
Holy cow, I thought that was Sam Seder on the thumbnail! 🤣 💀
Another opportunity apparently lost☹️
Looking forward to women signing up for the draft.
1. There is no longer a draft
2. Women have been serving the nation, enrolled in military for generations.
3. There’s a LOT of dangers in daily life to women - trafficking, abuse, rape.
We need the ERA.
But what would they campaign on then?
Yeah, let us see what happens! I welcome the legal fight.
About damn time that the ERA passes.
If the bill is at least put forward it will bring potential of conversation about the ERA
Publish it!
It seems to me that the time-limit requirement is unconstitutional: literally, that is not one of the requirements specified by the Constitution.
As Senator Gillibrand notes, the only two requirements stated by the Constitution have been met.
Thus, the ERA should be the law of the land. President Biden absolutely should instruct the Archivist to publish.
Yeah right, and not all men support their wives.
I hope so!!!!! 🙏💪👏
Sounds like a good idea!
Not in the slightest. It will be instantly struck down and open the way for Trump to change whatever he wants in the constitution
ERA now!!! Please President Biden!
Damaged legacy?
Yeah, he failed to rein in Netanyahu but, otherwise how is he damaged?
Anita Hill. Biden was head of the Senate Judiciary Committee running the Thomas confirmation hearing. He allowed for the trashing of her testimony of Thomas' active sexual harassment in Thomas' office towards her. Confirmation on TV every night by news clips that the the US officially didn't care and was willing to be blind.
I may think the ERA has all merits, except in that women could be drafted.
There is no draft
So we're changing the definition of Rxpe, right?
If this is codified than wouldn't that mean gender based legislation is unlawful as we are all equal. Legislation that target or benefits a group based on sex would be unlawful would it not?
It's happened
Did you guys see Biden’s interview with Ben Meiselas of The Meidas Touch Network? Biden hinted he was trying to pass this Ammendment.
Can’t wait to hear the in-depth coverage of the UHC CEO and the fall out with everyday Americans. Y’all podcasting about everything but it seems.
Let’s trick grandpa into signing this! It’ll be so easy, he can’t even speak!
You are pathetically misinformed. The grandpa that is coming into office Jan. 20th, is the one that can't speak or think.
You sure that's the hill you want to die on conscidering that this is pretty much every Right Wing President since Gerald Ford ?
Grandpa isn't president yet.
Lol....the archivist is not a lawyer. Also, the white house lawyers and RBG is wrong.
Lmao no they aren’t, notice how she can’t actually prove why she thinks the deadline doesn’t apply, she just insists it doesn’t
Compelling argument.
@@grumpyoldcat8302Because the deadline was arbitrary. There is nothing to say that deadlines apply, example of the amendment passed in 1992 is given.. 200 years have passed since it was proposed. Examine who declared (historically) that a deadline was required and whether they actually had any legitimacy to do so. Since Virginia just ratified the amendment it has met the constitutional requirements. That is all that should matter. But seemingly adherence to the Constitution seems rather weak in today's government. tRump is ineligible to hold office having participated in insurrection unless that impediment is removed by a 2/3rds vote. We don't see him being stopped there, do we? Ratify it. DO IT. Let it play out in court. Can you honestly say that it is OK for women to have no privacy? To have no control over our own bodies? Would men stand for this? No. They would not. So, if we can't have equal rights for women, perhaps women need to start demanding/taking rights away from men.
@@lamoinette23there is a HUGE difference between the 27th amendment and the ERA: *Congress established the deadline to pass it as part of the original proposal for the amendment,* while the 27th amendment had no deadline implemented to begin with.
I’ll never understand how people can be so ignorant as to argue the deadline with the ERA is arbitrary or being up the 27th amendment like it IN ANY WAY applies to this situation.
And not ONCE did I claim not to support the ERA, so you can go ahead and quit that bullshit. Just because I acknowledge that attempting to force it now would do more harm than good doesn’t mean I don’t care about equal rights. How fucking dare you insinuate otherwise?
Its already been ratified though.
The archivist said no :(
Would this mean women would be subjected to the draft?
There is no draft!
Yes. It’s called Selective Service, and would be to vehicle to implement a draft of one was called for.
I find it remarkable that I find no awareness in this conversation of the recent concern about preserving exclusive rights of women, that is, with putatively benign discrimination between men and women and about the question of the definition of woman raised by transgender ideology, all of which Trump exploited so effectively in getting elected. The recent election revealed what everyone knew, which is that a vast majority think that the categories of man and woman are defined by reproductive biology and not by self-identification and want sports and certain other spaces to allow segregation based on sex or at least take sex into account as the military still does in performance testing. Biden's handlers know this and don't want Democrats to challenge that majority. As they depart, the Biden admin recently withdrew their prposed rule defining sex in Title IX to include gender identity.
The fact that this issue was not even hinted at in this discussion, at the very least as a problem that proponents of resurrecting the old ERA can ignore and leave to the courts, should be annoying to liberals who want the trans muzzle removed from political discourse (Seth Moulton). In my liberal opinion the old ERA is as archaic as Phyllis Schafly's concern about lesbian marriage but not about other forms of sex segregation.
People resurrecting the ERA should want to hear what LGB Alliance and Kara Dansky think. They are feminists. Maybe they think the courts can fix these problems, that is, allow separate but equal to be ok for sex but not for race or think the courts will define 'sex' for the people, that it's not needed in legislation. Maybe they don't. Maybe the courts will regard separate but equal as wrong for sex as for race. Do we want that?
I'm sure the Senator from New York has thought about all this and puts this on the list of things that lawyers and judges will figure out for the masses after the ERA gets published but doesn't want this spoken of now. This member of the masses doesn't think that's a good idea. I don't think President Biden does either.
The 1972 Equal Rights Amendment contains within itself an ‘expiration’ date; e.g., a date (seven years after Congress passed the enabling legislation) by which the required number of states (38) had to ratify or the amendment would be void. Before that deadline expired, Congress voted to extend it to 1982. That came and went without ratification by the required number of states. There is abundant caselaw and an opinion from the Office of Legal Council of the Department of Justice that after the expiration of that deadline Congress has no power to extend the deadline.
Congress is vested with wide discretion in the drafting of procedures relating to constitutional amendments. The 18th and 20th through 27th amendments all had seven year deadlines. There is no legal means by which the ERA can be revived, and certainly not by a magic phone call from Joe Biden. We would do well to focus our efforts on more productive endeavors, rather than trying to balm egos wounded by a vote of the people 42 years ago.
Or just make it a national yes or no plebiscite vote for every single US citizen over 18. 50%+1 wins...zero veto and no court challenges permitted.
By your logic, the 27th failed ratification and is invalid.
But I think you make a bigger point. Lots of other countries, Japan among them, and U.S. states, have equal rights by gender expressly granted in their constitutions. With the election of so many Republicans to Congress that a new bill renewing the ERA did not pass, and now the election of Donald Trump, Americans have spoken. Maybe some women should have equal rights, but not all American women. They're not ready. Until they're ready to mobilize and give 38 states Democratic majorities again, American women will have to suffer under the legal regime a Christian minority prefers.
In support of your argument, a few of those Christians sit on the US Supreme Court, and their 6-3 majority would absolutely reject this 28th Amendment move. They would absolutely lean on that deadline argument. Whether language in a preamble is stronger than historical practice and the Constitution's express terms is beside the point if 6 justices hold that plain preference. In that sense, you're right.
But if you wanted to kick start a movement to enact a new ERA, wouldn't a bit of desperate effort help? If nothing else, it would clear the slate and clarify that activists need to start over. It might also reveal to all that this court does not embrace gender equality. That's a pretty good basis for popular organizing. Why not?
So ERA'S deadline is unique to the extent that it is not part of the text of the amendment. The other amendments incorporated ratification deadlines into the text of the amendment.
The rationale for publishing the ERA now is:
1) State ratification is permanent...it cannot be rescinded. Similarly, as the expiration is not explicitly part of the text of the amendment, the ability of the Congress to enforce the deadline is debatable.
2) There is precedent for the ratification of dormant amendments...the ratification effort for the now-ratified 27th Amendment was dormant for nearly two centuries.
The ERA should have been a slam dunk 40 years...Phyllis Schlafley was a despicable human being.
@@tobyodthat’s not how the constitution works
@@波紋小石the 27th amendment didn’t have an established timeline to begin with. You’re just admitting to being too stupid to google any of this by bringing it up.
Ladies, this may sound good but do you really want to enter conscription... fighting the front lones is not fun
l What branch were you forced to serve in? For me, it was the Navy. I don't have a problem with this, since it's not active and hasn't been for a long time.
We have an all volunteer military.
How do you know? Serious question.
Can I get some support for a stop stupid people from voting act?
My support for the ERA aside, Kirstin Gillibrand assumes that Justice Ginsburg knew NOTHING about politics, and that the National Archivist (who holds a doctorate from Yale) knows NOTHING about the law. I would argue that there's plenty of political savvy that goes into getting on the Supreme Court, and that the National Archivist probably knows more about the law than one might think. Senator Gillibrand, on the other hand, is pretty ineffective at both.
Dare the republicans to start the legal battle. Yes
So is President Biden going to do it??
What foolishness!
Not if God refuses to allow this atrocity.
Biden doesn't really take meetings. It's not specific to this issue. Also, ERA won't overturn Dobbs. The idea that laws are not allowed to regulate any issues that have biological asymmetry is patently absurd. There would be so many ways in which that would backfire. Furthermore, just look at the logic in Loving v Virginia (interracial marriage). Even though banning interracial marriage restricted all races equally relative to each other, the test for discrimination came down to the idea that a white man could marry a white woman but a black man could not marry a white woman. There are other tests too, but in this case, both men and women are banned from getting abortions. Would have to prove that the purpose of this law is to target women, and not in the actual interests of preventing abortion for its own sake.
Even without ERA, the abortion issue is clearly discriminatory on the female sex in accessing beneficial healthcare. This has to stop. Men don't have to jump though hoops or given absurd blackout periods to get their healthcare needs met. They are allowed to travel anywhere they like for healthcare; not so for pregnant individuals. Men aren't being turned away from maternity hospitals due to reproductive complications and they certainly aren't denied getting contraceptive or sterilization tech. Men don't have to worry about the lack of reproductive health specialists leaving in droves. Men aren't worrying about escalating costs and the declining quality of reproductive care.
Oh, and the most enduring truism of all: men don't fear getting pregnant and risk dying in childbirth.
The still USA has the worst maternal mortality rate among all developed nations. It's a health epidemic and an humanitarian issue. Call it what it is: state-assisted MATRICIDE.
Even without the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), the issue of abortion is unequivocally discriminatory against women and those who can become pregnant, denying them equitable access to essential healthcare. This systemic discrimination must end.
Consider the stark contrast: men do not face arbitrary restrictions, invasive scrutiny, or absurd blackout periods when seeking medical care. They are free to travel wherever they wish for healthcare services. Pregnant individuals, on the other hand, may be legally obstructed from doing so, depending on where they reside and the nature of their medical needs. This disparity is glaring.
Moreover, men are not turned away from hospitals due to complications with their reproductive health, nor are they denied access to contraception or sterilization procedures. They do not face opposition to the mere existence of reproductive healthcare facilities tailored to their needs. Meanwhile, those seeking reproductive care-including abortion-are often met with closed clinics, dwindling numbers of specialists, and rising barriers to access as an alarming number of professionals leave the field altogether.
The financial burden is no less severe. Those dealing with reproductive health challenges are grappling with escalating costs and declining quality of care, exacerbated by strict regulations and reduced availability of providers. This is in stark contrast to the largely unobstructed access men enjoy for their own healthcare needs.
And of course, the most enduring, undeniable truth remains: men do not face the biological reality of pregnancy. They do not carry the fear of potential complications during pregnancy or childbirth, nor the risk of dying as a result.
The United States has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed nations-a fact that should alarm and outrage us all. This is not just a public health crisis; it is a humanitarian issue. The failure to address this problem, compounded by state-level restrictions on abortion and other reproductive care, amounts to nothing less than state-sanctioned harm against women and pregnant individuals.
Call it by its name: this is *state-assisted matricide.*
Justice Alito, is that you under another name?
Ban Viagra😡
Not jill biden saying we know all about it, wtf
Yes, yes it can. Biden can authorize the activation of the EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT.
DO IT, JOE - FOR THE SAKE OF THE WOMEN AND GIRL CHILDREN IN AMERICA, GIVE US RIGHTS.
It would instantly be struck down by the courts and would open the way for Trump to make all sorts of changes to the constitution. People like you are destroying this country with your stupidity
Biden did nothing as usual.
Here's one that might actually work. Propose an amendment to repeal the 22nd amendment and do away with the electoral college at the same time. Trump would love the idea of getting another term and he would convince himself that he could win a popular vote. Republican legislatures would be pressured by MAGA to go along. It's probably the only chance we have of getting rid of the electoral college. It's worth trying.
GOD NO! Are you kidding? How is allowing Trump a path to president for life IN ANY WAY worth eliminating the electoral college?
In case you forgot, *Trump DID win the popular vote in 2024.*
@@grumpyoldcat8302 And he lost it twice. By wide margins.
@ okay, and? Your whole argument is based around the idea that he can’t win the popular vote, but that was proven false. It is a foolish plan that would only make it easier for Trump to become the dictator of his dreams
What is Biden’s objection?
My guess is that he has already decided whether he will or not. (I wouldn't be surprised if Jill has applied a bit of moral suasion).
In any event, if he has chosen to authorize the publishing of the ERA, it will be on January 19...it will be his final act.
You people make me laugh. You are all coming out with demands and ideas yet when it was time to do the one important thing i.e. vote, you could not be bothered. Its clear that you have not learnt anything yet. How many of you actively engage your representatives? Its funny how you are now demanding that the "grandpa" do something before he leaves office? Why not petition those who will be coming in January?
Because Trump won’t sign it.
Trump will be the oldest president we have ever had. Talk about great grand pa.
I had no idea it could be so hard for a senator to get a meeting with the president, feels very off 🤔
Are you serious? There are 535 members of Congress, do you expect the president to keep his schedule open for all of them?
@grumpyoldcat8302 Yes but there are only 100 senators, many of which hold office longer than the president. Like how many of them would want a personal meeting, 35 at max over 4 years? Doesn't seem to far off.
I rather had the impression that they are deliberately kept at a distance for show of power or whatever other reasons.
he should do it. … but he seems so “checked out” that he’s probably not going to do a d@mn thing.
It would be an idiotic waste of resources at a time when he should be doing so much more. It’s ridiculous there are STILL federal positions vacant after years of being left open by Biden.
This isn’t something that should be done half-assed. Just start the process over and do it properly.
Do it properly, just like how 99.8% of legislation Congress does is just through budget reconciliation.
@hwadeiv You want to amend the Constitution through budget reconciliation?
Right.
It's not being done "half-assed" - if you were to review the history of the Equal Rights Amendment you will see that it went through the "proper" process of passage by the House and by the Senate - in fact, it was originally passed very smoothly and quickly - and then the "proper" process of ratification in state after state legislature.
Just as happens with other amendments, once the 38th state ratified the process should be wrapped up with the amendment being "published" to the Constitution. Nothing half-assed about it.
@@vdk9797 One state changed its mind before the deadline. There was no precedent for this. When it didn't reach 38 by the deadline, Congress extended the deadline. While such a deadline is not specifically called for by the Constitution, that is the amendment that Congress and 37 states voted for.
To say "Just ignore all that" is as half-assed as it gets. More importantly, it leaves a lot of people thinking you cut corners, or even that you cheated, and therefore it's okay if they do the same.
Exactly. If the ERA has overwhelming support, pass it through Congress and run it through the states again. Most certainly, it'll be passed easily....yes? Well, I guess not since they're trying this trickery so....I guess they're 'not so sure' it has overwhelming support.