What changes in our law would result from enacting an "Equal Rights Amendment" to our Constitution?

Question

A very simple question, which has not been asked before.

But I'm asking a sincere question.

How far would it reach? What would it do that present law does not? and how would it be interpreted?

I'm interested in your thoughts. Thanks!

Answer 1

This is an easy question because back in the 1970s, the ERA was advocated and found impossible to implement for one crucial reason: the "equal protection under the law clause".

The ERA wanted to remove any distinctions between men and women. The problem is, once you do that, nothing can be prohibited. Separate public restrooms would not be legal. A guy could simply say that the bathrooms were "separate, but not equal". You could no longer hire a person based on gender. For example, let's say you had a branch office in Saudi Arabia. Due to Islamic law, it would be fruitless to send a woman representative to sell your products because she would not even get past the front door, sometimes literally! High schools could never have an all-boys football team.

Now I know what you're thinking: there are ways to fix these problems. The truthful answer is, no there are not. With the ERA, "separate but equal" is not good enough. Either gender can demand that no gender differences can be allowed. This would mean that a Hooters restaurant could not exist. Ask any lawyer, and he will confirm this. The courts would have been flooded with nuisance lawsuits.

A lot of people want gay marriage legalized. For the same reason, it cannot be allowed given our present laws, most notably the "equal protection under the law" clause, which is a solid pillar of our justice system that cannot be altered.

Let's imagine they allowed gay marriage. Immediately, that would wipe out the legal definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Anyone could then demand their own definition of marrige be legally recognized, and neither common sense, decency, nor public safety could be invoked to prevent this. For example, the boy-lusting men at NAMBLA would immediately demand the right to marry young boys. The courts would be powerless to stop them because now the definition of marriage is whatever anyone wants it to be. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

There are literally hundreds of laws which, combined, offer the type of protection sought in the ERA. Therefore, it is wholly unnecessary. And of course, now you must realize it is also not a viable legal choice.

Answer 2

Once again, Tara K is correct. The 14th Amendment provides that no state can deprive a person of the equal protection of the laws. This is known as the "Equal Protection Clause." Although the 14th Amendment does not apply to the federal government, Equal Protection is forced upon them via the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.

The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment is also an Anti-Discrimination Clause that prohibits states from making any laws that favor in-staters over out-of-staters.

How far does it reach?

Although the Constitution does not apply to the actions of private citizens (except the 13th Amendment), Congress can apply the above constitutional norms to private behavior through statutes. (i.e., Title VII).

Answer 3

The text of the proposed amendment is below:

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.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

The amendment would give women the same status under the law as minorities. Laws passed making gender distinctions would be interpreted under strict scrutiny as opposed to intermediate scrutiny (as they are now).

Also, 19 states already have equal rights amendments or guarantees in their constitutions: Alaska,
Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. The parade of horrors described by those against the ERA hasn't occurred in those states.

Answer 4

Our shape is a appropriate rfile. all the unique "meant interpretation" has labored for over 3 hundred years and there is not any might desire to reinterpret. As issues replace in our society, issues come alongside that our Founders ought to in no way have imaged for the period of those circumstances. What makes the rfile so appropriate is that this is amended to handle the hot advice with out changing the unique reason. Our shape develop into loosely based on the Magna Carta which has been appropriate as a results of fact the 1200's and has stood the try of time - with this is unique reason saved in place. fortuitously, for "we, the persons", this is not any longer elementary to make amendments to our shape....this is an exceedingly serious remember and is taken serious via people who evaluate it. If it weren't for our Constitutional secure practices, our cutting-edge administration might have thoroughly performed away with it. As Cheney stated, "this is basically a chew of paper"....

Answer 5

legalizing gay marriage comes to mind. But I don't think we need amendments for equal rights, I believe that is explicitly stated in the constitution. We are all created equal, and have equal protection under the constitution from gov't interferences, which are also explicitly stated, and if not, are implied (which is also explicitly stated). we just need to enforce penalties for violations of the constitution, not write statutes protecting the violators...

Answer 6

It would depend on what the amendment actually said about equal rights. An amendment is more than just a title...

Answer 7

Freedom of contract was tossed out as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in 1937...the end of the Lochner era. It was untenable for the courts to handle issues so integral to capitalism. If the ERA were to pass, the Supreme Court would interpret it as narrowly as possible to avoid the problems of the past.

Answer 8

There is already such an amendement. they are the 13th and 14th amendments.

However, to answer your question, unless the law you mention were to be enforced it wouldn't make any difference and would change little.

Answer 9

Actually, our Constitution (the federal one) already has equal protection.