Lang won’t call ERA for vote today
Wednesday, May 16, 2018 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Ever since the days when the Equal Rights Amendment was first proposed, the constitutional amendment would regularly pass one Illinois legislative chamber and then die in the other. The Senate approved the measure earlier this year…
Some video of Rep. Lang’s press conference is here.
* But a Chicago event is apparently going ahead anyway…
JB Pritzker and ERA Advocates to Hold Press Conference Ahead of House Vote
Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, Chicago Women’s March Co-Founder Jessica Scheller to Speak
WHAT
JB Pritzker to speak in support of the Equal Rights Amendment and call on Bruce Rauner to stand with Illinois women. Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, Chicago Women’s March co-founder Jessica Scheller and ERA advocates to join press conference.
WHEN
Wednesday, May 16 at 11:00 AM
…Adding… JB Pritzker…
“It’s time to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. I urge Republicans and Democrats in the House to come together and get this done, and I call on the governor to get off the sidelines and finally summon the courage to lead,” said JB Pritzker. “This isn’t hard. Women are asking for some basic rights. Our state is dealing with a lot of complicated issues. This isn’t one of them. Bruce Rauner should declare his support, and ask members of his own party to step up and vote for the ERA. I’m proud to stand with supporters of the ERA to fight for its passage, and I will be an unwavering advocate and ally for women’s rights as I have always been. It’s time for Bruce Rauner to do the same.”
* Related…
* Pantagraph Editorial: Illinois needs to ratify ERA and do it now
- Fax Machine - Wednesday, May 16, 18 @ 10:36 am:
What’s the point of this? Tha amendment expired so it’s not going to be part of the Constitution.
- Perrid - Wednesday, May 16, 18 @ 10:40 am:
@Fax Machine, 1 - Making an inclusive statement is not worthless, and 2 - There is some question as to whether Congress could set aside the time limit, so it has a nonzero chance of actually becoming part of the Constitution.
- SaulGoodman - Wednesday, May 16, 18 @ 10:46 am:
**There is some question as to whether Congress could set aside the time limit, so it has a nonzero chance of actually becoming part of the Constitution.**
It has happened before. And constitutional amendments have eventually been ratified well past any kind of reasonable timeframe. You can read more here:
http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/ratification.htm
- walker - Wednesday, May 16, 18 @ 10:49 am:
Lang is playing this straight. He doesn’t want to lock in any No votes that could change in the future; he isn’t setting up any member for specific campaign attacks, with a bill that won’t pass.
- DuPage Saint - Wednesday, May 16, 18 @ 10:52 am:
The proponents say Congress can extend the deadline. They also say that the five states that voted for the ERA then changed mind and voted to rescind ERA cannot do that. Sort of like having your cake and eating it too.
I believe ERA should pass but do it cleanly all we need is this to end up in court.
- anon2 - Wednesday, May 16, 18 @ 11:05 am:
It sounds as if there is no clarity about whether the ERA proposed in 1872 could become part of the Constitution.
SCOTUS precedents in 1921 and 1939 affirmed that Congress has the power to fix a definite time limit for ratification. The Dillon decision said that an amendment should be ratified within a “reasonable” and “sufficiently contemporaneous” time frame “to reflect the will of the people in all sections at relatively the same period.”
So amendments proposed much earlier lacked time limits and could therefore be ratified at any time. It’s a self-serving interpretation that states may always change their minds from No to Yes, but never from Yes to No.
- Honeybear - Wednesday, May 16, 18 @ 11:14 am:
Seems like cowardice to me.
That or incompetence
Vote and pass it Lang
You’re jeopardizing a lot of activist women and men
By welching on this.
No excuses
Action
- Macbeth - Wednesday, May 16, 18 @ 11:17 am:
How in the world can you *not* have the votes for this?
Who’s voting against it?
- Anon225 - Wednesday, May 16, 18 @ 11:24 am:
==It’s a self-serving interpretation that states may always change their minds from No to Yes, but never from Yes to No.=
I find this to be the most interesting part of the debate on the legality of ratifying after the original time limit. I was doing some research on the debate and came across an article that stated that fives states who ratified the amendment before 1982 have since voted to rescind their ratification.
To me it doesn’t sense that states are allowed to change their vote from a No to a Yes 40 plus years later, but states who were a Yes can’t change it to a No.
Either way I would like to see the ERA ratified now.
- A guy - Wednesday, May 16, 18 @ 12:01 pm:
They’ve had 30 years+ to write a better version of this amendment. A better, more reasoned one that takes into account the several changes that have occurred since. I don’t know why they haven’t. Write a better amendment.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, May 16, 18 @ 1:04 pm:
===Write a better amendment.===
A guy named A guy wants women to write a better amendment because there’s been so much change for women in the last thirty years. Lol.
- anon2 - Wednesday, May 16, 18 @ 1:19 pm:
There are legitimate reasons to doubt the 1972 ERA could now be ratified, even if Illinois changes its mind from No to Yes. If it can’t be — given the time limit issue and the rescission issue — then this debate is all hot air.
- A guy - Wednesday, May 16, 18 @ 2:09 pm:
==A guy named A guy wants women to write a better amendment because there’s been so much change for women in the last thirty years. Lol.===
Frankly, I don’t care what gender writes the better amendment. A more carefully crafted amendment with better and more comprehensive language likely would have passed without the delays and extensions. Much of what was desired has been addressed since this time. I would never argue there isn’t more work to do. There is.
Is there anything that crossed your mind 30 years ago that you couldn’t refine today based on better understanding and changing circumstances? Being A Guy has nothing to do with this. I want for my sisters and daughters everything I want for my brothers and sons.
Even in agreeing with the spirit of this, it’s the US Constitution. That means the Letter and the Spirit need to be in order. Fix it.
- Amalia - Wednesday, May 16, 18 @ 2:29 pm:
what could be better than equality? I’m not less than any man. All men are in the constitution. I’m not. Do your part to fix that, Illinois.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, May 16, 18 @ 2:43 pm:
===A more carefully crafted amendment with better and more comprehensive language likely would have passed without the delays and extensions.===
There are plenty of people, many of whom call themselves “conservatives,” who do not believe women and men are equal. Surely you understand that fact. But enlighten me, what specific changes do you think would have resulted in passage of this 30 years ago?
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, May 16, 18 @ 2:48 pm:
Guy, I’ll help you out a little. Here is the heart of the Amendment, just tell me what you’d change:
“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”
- Anonymous - Wednesday, May 16, 18 @ 2:50 pm:
==A more carefully crafted amendment with better and more comprehensive language likely would have passed without the delays and extensions==
Explain “carefully crafted” and “better and more comprehensive language” please.
- Galena Guy - Thursday, May 17, 18 @ 9:43 am:
Thank you Macbeth, Anonymous, and 47th for pointing out the absolute absurdity.