THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT (ERA)
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a “proposed amendment” to the United States Constitution
which was introduced into the U. S. Congress in 1971 and 1972 with some success.
The ERA was first drafted, and it was first “proposed” by Alice Stokes Paul in 1923.
Its text contained three sections:
“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 ERA was passed by both houses of the U. S. Congress (by the U. S. House of Representatives on
October 12, 1971: 354 to 24; and by the U. S. Senate on March 22, 1972: 84 to 8].
The ERA failed to gain ratification (by the states) before the “second”, imposed deadline of June 30,
1982 (the first deadline was on March 22, 1979: at this point 35 states had ratified the amendment).
Phyllis McAlpin Stewart Schlafly (1924-present) is usually “credited” with “stopping” the state
ratification process for this “proposed” amendment (along with “Big” Labor and others). She is a
Constitutional attorney, and she is a conservative activist who founded the Eagle Forum in 1972.
The Eagle forum is the parent organization for the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund and
the Eagle Forum PAC. Her organization is pro-family, socially conservative, and anti-feminist. Phyllis is
an extreme, conservative Christian (Roman Catholic) who has been “leading the pro-family movement
since 1972.”
And, Phyllis is a self-proclaimed “bigot” who might be suffering from “Stockholm syndrome” (“a
paradoxical, psychological condition in which hostages express empathy and have positive feelings
towards their captors” [or abusers]: and sometimes to the point of defending them). Why else would
she undermine her gender’s efforts for equality under U. S. law?
(Article Five of the U. S. Constitution “describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered”
[amended]. In essence, this process [of amending] consists of two components: (1) of proposing; and
(2) of ratifying.
In proposing, there are two methods. First, amendments may be proposed at the federal level: by twothirds vote of both houses of the U. S. Congress [two-thirds of 435 members in the U. S. House of
Representatives and by two-thirds vote of 100 members in the U. S. Senate]. And, second, amendments
may be proposed at the state level by a national convention. This convention can be assembled at the
request of state legislatures “of at least two-thirds of the several states” [currently, 33 states].
In ratifying, there are two methods. First, and by the federal method of proposal, amendments must be
ratified by state legislatures of three-fourths of the states [currently, 38 states]. And, second, and by the
state method of proposal, amendments must be ratified by state conventions in three-fourths of the
states [currently, 38 states].
Any amendment [which is approved by either of the above methods] would become a “valid” part of the
U. S. Constitution, provided that no state “shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage” in the U. S. Senate,
without its consent.
All 27 Amendments to the U. S. Constitution have been “proposed and ratified” by the federal method of
“creation.” And, the “framers” made the process [of “altering or amending”] purposely difficult in order
to protect the original intentions of their work of “genius.”
As stated in the Preamble to the U. S. Constitution, these intentions were: “We the People of the
United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, established Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of America.”)
The “oligarchs” really, really hate the “Preamble.” It clearly states that the overall purpose of the
Constitution is not to impose the will of the American few upon the American many.
The “Preamble” has never been used as a “decisive factor” in court adjudication: the courts have stated
that the “Preamble” does not assign powers to the federal government. On the other hand, it does not
provide for specific limitations on federal actions when it comes to the “general Welfare” of the
American many.
The intentions of the “authors” of the Constitution were to stop the attempts of the international
“oligarchs” and the colonial “oligarchs” from imposing their social and their political structures (for
example, the state religion of England: the Church of England) upon the diverse inhabitants of the
United States of America.
The first 10 Amendments of the Constitution are designated as the “Bill of Rights.” The remaining 17
Amendments are an exercise in the “adaptation” of the Document to changing, American realities over
time.
Still, the issue of the imposing of extreme, Christian values upon the American many is “alive and well.”
For example, this “oligarchic” tendency can be seen in the “creation” of Amendment XVIII (which
“abolished liquor” sales within the United States). It was ratified on January 16, 1919. Of course, this
Amendment was repealed by Amendment XXI (on December 5, 1933) to the great disappointment of
“organized crime” and “Big” Corporate and their “familiars” (extreme, Christian conservatives and some
state and federal legislators).
The “parent” Amendment to the ERA was Amendment XIX of the U. S. Constitution.
Amendment XIX states that “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have the power to
enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
Thank you Alice Stokes Paul [1885-1977] and Lucy Burns [1879-1966] and the National Women’s Party
[which was founded in 1915] for your courage and your tenacity in demanding that women should have
the right to vote.
(That an amendment had to be created in order to establish and in order to protect a woman’s right to
vote is a national disgrace. This right was never excluded by the U. S. Constitution. Again, this is another
example of the “oligarchs” attempt to impose their extreme, conservative, Christian, value systems
upon the American many.)
Still, Alice was not satisfied with the ratification of Amendment XIX.
(In Plane Geometry, the shortest distance between two points (point “a” and point “b”) is a straight line.
This theorem [a formula, a proposition, or a statement in mathematics or in logic which is deduced or
will be deduced from other formulas or propositions) is never true in politics.)
Alice understood [intuitively] and argued [correctly] that legal discrimination under the law would still
remain unless an amendment was created that would deal, directly, with the issue of “women’s
equality.” She drafted a “proposed”, equal rights amendment for women in 1923. She named her
“proposed” amendment after the great Lucretia Coffin Mott (1793-1880): the Lucretia Mott
amendment.
(Lucretia was an American Quaker, an abolitionist, a social reformer, and a women’s rights proponent.
To quote Lucretia’s original proposition, “Men and Women shall have Equal Rights throughout the
United States.”)
SCOTUSFTO (Supreme Court of the United States for the “Oligarchs”) ruled in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
Dukes that the class (“women”) should not be certified in its present form. In a vote of 5-4, the court
disagreed “on the reason and for allowing the case to continue in a different form [thus, making it more
difficult to utilize a class action procedure against “Big” Retail).
Chief John G. Roberts and the “unholy four” (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy), again, supported the
“rights” of the U. S. corporations over the “rights” of individuals [female] by avoiding the merits of the
case before them. A ratified ERA would have made it more difficult for the “high” court “to pander” to
Wal-Mart and its like.
The “framers” of the Constitution never intended that U. S. corporations should have the same or more
“rights” than that of “actual” people (despite the “pre-paid” opinions of the “high” court).
(In another example of individual “bias” within the “high” court, Antonin “bought and paid for” Scalia
acted, independently, to let Philip Morris [and three other tobacco companies] delay their “court
ordered” financing of a drug [nicotine], treatment program. His “justification” for acting on his own
[with the approval of Chief Justice Roberts] was that “at least three other justices would see things his
way and want to hear the case, and that the “high” court would probably strike down that expensive
judgment” [against “Big” Tobacco].
Did “Justice” Scalia receive one of John Boehner’s checks in order to rule the way he did?)
Scalia (along with Thomas, Alito, and Roberts) should be “impeached” for “biased”, judiciary
performance as well as for unethical and/or criminal (the receiving of corporate compensation,
indirectly or directly) behavior.
The “high” court (along with the other, two branches of the U. S. Government) has become a simple
“tool” to benefit “Big” Corporate of America.
To summarize, the need for the re-introduction of ERA is becoming more and more apparent after the
“failed” ratification efforts of the past.
With the repeated denial of “reproductive” rights, of “teacher” pension rights, and of other “women”
rights by the state legislatures and by the state and federal judiciary systems, ERA is needed: but, this
time, for ratification.
Let us see if “Big” Labor (and Phyllis) has the courage and tenacity to suppress women’s rights for
equality under the law this time.
Did you know that the “oligarchs” are attempting to repeal the state and the federal child labor laws?
These “leopards” will do anything for their divinely, ordained profits!
SCOTUSFTO has forgotten, again, that it works for the American many, not the American few: the
designated name for the nation is the United States of America, not the United “Corporate” States of
America.
To hell with the “oligarchs” (“Big” Labor and “Big” Retail) and their “familiars” (the state legislatures and
the state and federal court systems),
Fromoneofthemany