Do you support it? From the text:
"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."
From this, (taken from equalrightsamendment.org), it sounds to be completely libertarian.
What current laws do you think it would change?
The only problem I see with this is that it could lead to compensation/quotas- public schools (for instance) might use a quota system to guarentee they have a representative populace. ie, to make sure asian-pacific islanders have college education, 1% of the school will be that, assuming 1% in country is same “race”, although that # may not actually be qualifited.
(sorry for spelling)
Like… the 19th amendment?
That’s what I thought too. Wouldn’t it be a bit redundant? (I was thinking more along the lines of 14 - Equal protection under law) I can’t help but wonder if supporters wish to use it for another purpose, like quotas.
It seems like the protection afforded women by this amendment would overlap to a great extent with that provided by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as has already been mentioned. However, here is a quote from the equal rights amendment website:
"We need the ERA because the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause has never been interpreted to grant equal rights on the basis of sex in the same way that the Equal Rights Amendment would. The 14th Amendment has been applied to sex discrimination only since 1971, and the Supreme Court’s latest decision on that issue in 1996 does not move us beyond the traditional assumption that males hold rights and females must prove that they hold them."
This is, in my opinion, a questionable reading of the law.
However, I would argue that the fear that such an amendment would lead to quota systems is unfounded. The Supreme Court has been pretty consistent in finding that the use of such reverse discrimination is unconstitutional. I’m pretty sure the ERA, if ratified, would be treated the same way.
Which rights? Hopefully it is from the list of “Natural Rights”, most importantly the right to dispose of private property, whose exercise by people requires no burdens to be placed on someone else. If this is the case then there is no more denial based upon sex than any other criteria.
Amending the Constitution is so passé. What “rights” are women being denied, anyway?
I don’t really think that Amendment is necessary. the 14th was a disaster (it severely increased the power of the Federal Government) and wasn’t even ratified before it became part of the Constitution. They need to repeal the 14th, the 16th, and the 17th.
I agree with the 16th and 17th, but why do you think the 14th should be repealed?
You agree with the 16th and 17th Amendments…ugh! How can you agree with an Amendment that “legalizes” government theft?
The state’s declaration of equality is an equivocation and obfuscation. If you support the state, then you cannot support equality, because you support the state’s agents having rights the rest of us do not have.
Spot on, Dr. Lewis. 
The 14th already takes care of that. This is just unnecessary nonsense.
Doesn’t sound libertarian to me.
Depends if they mean positive rights or not…