Yesterday morning, while John Boehner was leading the House of Representatives in what David Corn called the "weaponizing" of the Constitution, I stood in front of the Capitol with Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NJ), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI) and other leaders of women's rights organizations to talk about what's missing from that document.
I held up a copy of the Constitution and started flipping through the pages, looking for the parts that guarantee equality to all women. Oh, wait -- that turns out to be kind of hard to pin down, doesn't it?
Let's see... Article One? No, that doesn't mention women. Article Two, Article Three? No mention of women there either.
Let's skip to the Amendments. There's a right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion... a right to trial by jury... no explicit mention of women's rights there.
Okay, here is Amendment 19 -- the women's suffrage amendment. It says: "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." Great!
But wait. As important as the right to vote is, it doesn't guarantee full equality to women.
What about the 14th Amendement? It says: "No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Excellent! Here is the part of the Constitution that guarantees equality to women -- right?
After all, just last year the Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens United case that corporations are "persons" fully entitled to the free speech rights granted by the First Amendment. So, if a corporation can be a "person," surely a woman would count as a person too -- right?
Um, not according to Justice Antonin Scalia, who recently said the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection does not include women. Think about it: a sitting justice of the United States Supreme Court doesn't consider half the population to be "persons" by the Constitution.
Sadly, Scalia's sexism is shared by other powerful men in our country. Speaker Boehner, for example, is about as anti-women as they come. He led the opposition to the Lily Ledbetter Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation designed to end the systematic wage discrimination that makes it hard for women -- and especially hard for women of color, who have to contend with racial as well as sex-based discrimination -- to build up wealth or save for their children's education or their own retirement.
Boehner has also boasted that he'll use his position to block women from having access to reproductive health care, including abortion and birth control. Think about that: John Boehner wouldn't dream of withholding any form of health care from men, but as far as he's concerned women's health care is fair game.
The harsh reality is that men like Antonin Scalia, John Boehner and other right-wing ideologues are determined to use their power to keep women down. That is why we need an explicit guarantee of equality for women in the Constitution -- and why the National Organization for Women won't stop fighting until we achieve it.
Click here to learn more about what you can do.
But there's no explicit mention of MEN's rights either!
Person, noun:
1,) A human being (not company) whether man, woman or child.
4.) philosophy: a self-concious or rational being.
I prefer the fourth one. Makes it constitutional to discriminate against Republicans. ;) lol
Just impeach him. If there was ever a reason to impeach a sitting judge, this is it.
You have the House about to have a symbolic vote to repeal a health bill, but not one Democrat will stand up and propose the correct solution for a Judge who can't find women in the word "person"? Cowards.
Our country is less and less a reflection of what its people want it to be, and more and more a toy of corporations and the right wing. I though the worst was over when George W. Bush left office, but the Supreme Court showed its contempt for the democratic process with Citizens United. If we don't take action, this time in history may be remembered as a tipping point toward a new, non-democratic United States.
This is very disturbing political theater. Yesterday, was January 6, 2011. Yesterday, January 6, 2011, The House became Republican. The Senate became much less Democrat majority. Before that, for the entirety of the preceding two year period from 01/20/09, the President (Obama) was a Democrat, the House, led by Democrat House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (female/woman), had a very substantial Democrat majority, as did the Senate led by Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid, with a large Democrat majority.
Just exactly where was NOW, and where has NOW been the last 2 years? When all 3 branches of government were controlled by DEMOCRATS? Why protest now, NOW? The truth is, NOW doesn't really want an ERA-not yesterday, not today, and not tomorrow. The reason NOW is protesting now is because NOW understands it will be a fruitless effort now, that can be used to smear Republicans. It's truly a sad day when Larry Flynt was advocating for an ERA last year, but not NOW...
What NOW wants is equal, or even preferential rights. NOW is not interested in equal responsibility. NOW would like to ensure that women get all rights, privileges, and benefits, without having to endure the accompanying responsibilitites that go hand in hand with equal rights. If NOW was in fact interested in true equality it would be performing sit ins and loud protests in Selective Service Offices demanding that women, as well as men, not be denied their EQUAL RESPONSIBILITY AND OBLIGATION to register for selective service-this is but one example of a responsibility unequally borne by men. But, ehere is NOW on this RESPONSIBILITY issue? They have been quite content to endure THIS discrimination....
In addition, any equal rights clarification needs to state PERSON. How does a transgendered person benefit from men or women language? All people.....one principle....same standard....no preferences....no deferential in treatment.
Today's Feminism is yesterday's news, and will be until it become HUMANIST as it should be in the first place.
All MALES in the U.S. must register with Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthday.
Failure to register as required is grounds for denying US citizenship.
MEN who were FEMALE at birth and have changed sex are not required to register.
Failure to register can lead to denial of Pell Grants.
MEN who fail to register and do not do so could face up to five years in jail or a fine up to $250,000 if convicted.
Federal laws requiring that to receive financial aid, federal grants and loans, certain government benefits, eligibility for most federal employment, and (if the person is an immigrant) eligibility for citizenship, a young MAN had to be registered (or had to have been registered, if they are over 26 but were required to register between 18 and 26) with Selective Service. Those who were required to register, but failed to do so before they turn 26, are no longer allowed to register, and thus may be permanently barred from federal jobs and other benefits.
Most states, as well as the District of Columbia, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and Virgin Islands, have laws requiring registration in order for men 18–25 to be eligible for programs that vary on a per-jurisdiction basis but typically include driver's licenses, state-funded higher education benefits, and state government jobs. Alaska requires registration in order to receive an Alaska Permanent Fund dividend.
Shouldn't WOMEN be treated EQUALLY? Where's the outrage?
There needs to be a world-wide ERA for women.
Whether or not he is making a horribly revealing comment about his understanding of the intent of the constitution , or is simply stating a constitutional interpretation that is a fairly standard one ("originalism"?) the fact remains that he is a proven right-wing shill. So whether you are pro-ERA or not, perhaps we could all agree that what he says is not good news for women, or any of us.
I cannot agree that the mostly-all-white-men who "run this country" (whether in private or public life) are all jumping up and down about women gaining ever more power in this country. Women think and act differently than men, by and large, and we would run this country very differently I believe. I am not saying all women, of course. But if suddenly Congress was 90% women and 90% of corporate uppity-ups were women, I believe things would be different in the world. So the males resist this.
I also don't think the ERA and those who supported it, or still support it, would say it is about their personal self-worth. It is about laws, and the enforcement of those laws. Equal pay, health care, discrimination issues, etc. Important stuff
Ideally, I think our constitution should be re-written in such a way that it SCREAMS that we are all equal NO MATTER WHAT NO MATTER WHEN NO MATTER HOW... without any gray areas. I know this is silly, and many will say it already says that, but still the spirit of it could be a bit more updated and clear don't you think? Just thinking outloud here....