Why No One’s Sure If This Is Part Of The US Constitution
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 10. 2022
- Start planning a career that works on one of the world's most pressing problems at 80000hours.org/halfasinteresting
Get a Half as Interesting t-shirt: standard.tv/collections/half-...
Suggest a video: halfasinteresting.com/suggest
Follow Sam from Half as Interesting on Instagram: / sam.from.wendover
Follow Half as Interesting on Twitter: / halfinteresting
Discuss this video on Reddit: / halfasinteresting
Video written by Adam Chase
Check out our other channels: / wendoverproductions
/ jetlagthegame
![tattoo printer tutorial[제품단순선물]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/g40_GwEJak0/mqdefault.jpg)
"I'm not here to take a stance on controversial issues like whether human beings deserve civil rights". Occasionally I forget what political discourse is like in the US...
They are really not ok..
There can be times where these things can be taken too far though. I'm all for equal rights based on race, sex etc. But all these new sexualities are getting out of hand, it's at the point where business owners are being oppressed rather than them being the oppressors.
@@LastEmperor_ what are you talking about
@@LastEmperor_ You literally just proved OP's point
@@LastEmperor_ really proving the commenter’s point right there. “New sexualities” are not *threatening* business owners?? What the hell are you talking about.
People just find some strange confort in labels. Personally I don’t care for them, but it’s not a lot to ask for a little decency, and respect that those people like that label.
Don’t get what calling people what they want to be called has to do with owning a business??? Are customers oppressing people by asking for a little human decency? And if you do get it wrong, most people are happy to let you know they prefer something else and then you can just move on. Most likely you’ll never see that person again anyway,
For anyone wondering why he said 33 amendments rather than 27, there have been a total of 6 unratified amendments. I still don't agree with this grouping, but I do think this is where the 33 came from
so... those still law then?
@@PrograError um........
no.
Do you not know how the constitution works?
@@yondie491 In fairness, this whole video was about an amendment that may or may not be law, we’re not certain.
Also, to my ears an “unratified amendment” is an oxymoron, so I think that’s a fair question.
@@bernier42 I think the issue stems from a misnomer. The amendment doesn't become an amendment by the 2/3 in each house vote, it actually only becomes a proposal (yes needing 2/3 in each house doesn't pass the law it only turns into a proposal), hence the confusion. It becomes an amendment once the 3/4 states have ratified it. You probably already know that it's just that I assume the word 'unratified amendment' became a shorthand for 'proposed amendment'
@@yondie491 not everyone here is american mate...
It sounds less like "no one's sure" than "everyone's sure, but a few people really would like them to pretend otherwise."
Awkwardly, Illinois passed a slightly different amendment than was passed by the rest of the states. It's just a small wording difference and they've since made clear their intention, but it's hilarious that they managed to misword it
Oh dang 😳 I'm a rap artist.
"Ah, crap, we made a typo and accidentally passed the Equal Tights Amendment. Well, back to square one."
I don't think anyone's unsure. I support the ERA, but it is pretty clear that it is not part of the constitution. Even if the ERA lawsuit currently underway succeeds on appeal and states are deemed not to have the power to revoke ratification, they would still need congress to nullify the past ratification deadline under their own legal theory. It is unambiguously not part of the constitution right now.
@@tauntingeveryone7208 Exactly. Past amendments (18, 20, 21, 22) have had the deadline included into the amendment itself, but this not being the case of the ERA, and the lack of any such mentioning in the constitution, my pro-ERA stance leads me to think that Congress adding ratification deadlines as separate legislation is inherently unconstitutional, or those pieces of legislation are legally unenforceable, given the lack of any such powers granted in the constitution (even beyond the scope of the necessary and proper clause), given how core and fundamental the amendment process is.
@@tauntingeveryone7208 You could pull a small trick here. Insert the deadline into the amendment.
"This amendment shall take effect only if ratified after March 22, 1979."
This trick would permit a deadline to be set. Of course, this trick was not pulled in this case, so it's still pretty questionable whether the proposal's deadline is valid. But this sort of trick is pretty useful. For example, if Congress wanted to make sure they could modify a proposal after proposing it, they could propose the following amendment:
"The Constitution shall be amended with the most recent revision of Congress's proposal."
That's it. That's the amendment. This amendment amends the Constitution. And there's nothing preventing this from happening. However, I don't recommend that Congress do this. It's really hacky.
@@tauntingeveryone7208 That's not the case the pro-ERA camp is making. SCOTUS has already ruled that congress can basically do whatever it wants with regards to deadlines back in the 30s (Coleman v. Miller). The argument the pro-ERA camp makes is that congress can and should revoke the deadline after the fact. That in combination with revocations being declared unconstitutional is how they seek to move forward as is. So long as that deadline remains in place it isn't ambiguous.
"I support the ERA but it's pretty clear that is not a part of the constitution" so? Why does leftist change always haves to happen under such a limited framework while they let the right do whatever they want. If now all the states necessary ratified it there's no real reason to not pass it, but of course the democratic process can be infinitely stretched for no reason. It's like trying to stop Nestlé from using exploitative and child labour by suing them.
@@professorquarter ....dude, wat?
They literally make both of those arguments.
You're allowed to make more than one argument in a case, and use them as fallbacks in case other arguments fail. It's really poor practice NOT to make multiple arguments like that.
I'm sure. I am a Constitutional Lawyer. I specialize in the Amendment process. It is NOT part of the Constitution. I wish it were, it's good policy. The 2020 DOJ report on it explained it perfectly. Yes, that DOJ was terrible under Trump. But that doesn't mean they were wrong in this case.
Also, Congress extending the deadline wouldn't do it. There were several recisions and some states claiming their ratification was contingent on the expiration date and expired when the original 7 years were up. Without an extension followed by a NEW ratification by 38 states, there is no way to ensure the proper consensus needed for an amendment.
I remember that well.
There were lots of people that were upset that the ERA got special treatment by extending the deadline and several states rescinded their approval. When the rules were changed again to allow more time to for states to approve but deny states the right to deny it was obvious that "the fix was in" and many people who originally voted for it changed their minds as well.
Wait... hold on... are you telling me that a 5-minute explanation simplified the complex topics sooooo much that it is right on the border of being wrong? I thought (and I learned from tik tok) that all things can be solved in 3 minutes or less.
In reality, complex questions can't be solved in 30 words either. I question the legal side effects of only 30 words, and how those words will be open to so much interpretation that they become more of a problem than they solve. I agree with the principle, but not necessarily the solution.
The 1982 extension itself was unconstitutional, as it only had a majority vote and not a 2/3 vote as required by the Constitution.
Just the guy I need then. So what would actually change under the ERA that isn't already covered by other laws/regs like the Equal Pay Act or Title Nine?
@@Derwin0 That wasn't why it was arguably unconstitutional. The resolution surrounding the mode of ratification, which is allowed to include deadlines, does not need to meet the same 2/3 requirement as the amendment language itself. It was arguably unconstitutional because states ratified contingent on the deadline. That question could go either way, and SCOTUS had a case pending to answer it... but it was declared moot when the extended deadline passed with no new ratification. Extending a deadline that ALREADY expired is less likely to be considered valid.
The fact that his researchers, or the writers totally ignored the fact that five states - Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky, and South Dakota - voted to rescind their earlier support for the ERA, is just pure laziness. Those actions are also being questioned in court and are crucial to get a full picture of this situation.
They claim to be an educational channel in this video. They're about as educational, and respectful of education, as Fox News.
Not only did they VERY INTENTIONALLY chose to not mention those facts, they also very intentionally chose to not mention Dillon v Gloss or Coleman v Miller.
Why?
Because this is a demagoguery style video filled with known lies in order to brainwash people who don't the drive to do an ounce of their own research.
It's disgusting.
Fox News would be proud.
America, and I say this as a massive understatement, needs to grow the fuck up.
Yeah... This one was not it.
States might not have the authority to rescind previous ratifications.
That’s a great point, and all the more reason it should’ve been brought up and discussed in the video.
Something also worth noting is that six states have rescinded their ratifications. So not only is it important to determine whether the deadline was legal or whether Congress can extend it, it's also important to determine whether a state actually can revoke their consent for a proposed amendment.
Per the National Archives "In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive."
So once the Ratification has been submitted to them and proven to be correct at the time, It is Final and Conclusive as being that state's answer. There is no law or legal measure that says they can change their mind afterwards where there is specific laws saying that once accepted it has to be kept (mostly about how it's confirmed, kept, and where).
On looking up why the National Archives has that as the rule
Some States have tried to change their ratification choices before, but In the course of promulgating the 14th Amendment, Congress determined that both attempted withdrawals of ratifications and previous rejections prior to ratification had no legal validity.
Some States tried to bring this to court as mentioned in the video and it was not taken up by the Courts until it was dropped. So, that 14th Amendment precedent that the National Archives made that decision off of still stands.
I did some research after this video and found the arguments much more nuanced. There are existing laws covering the ERA for private sector, and what ERA does is basically ONLY covering the government. Which means, the biggest change if we pass ERA is selective service(draft) for women, women cannot receive preferential placements in government, and for every women's program there's a men's program.
The biggest thing in my opinion is, as given by past supreme court rulings (recent ones mind you) LGBTQ+ protections are inherent in sex-based protections (because if the person being discriminated was entirely the same, except for having a different sex then they wouldn't be gay they'd be straight, or they wouldn't be trans they'd be cis, yes that does leave the possibility for bisexual and non-binary people to be discriminated but idk). That means that any state laws that discriminate against trans people are unconstitutional.
all it would take to correct the selective service part would be a loophole in the amendment, no?
@@MayorMcC666 What loophole?
This is what I hate about videos like this, and more importantly arguments like this video in general. Most people are rational human beings. We all believe in basic things like gender equality (in the US). There is such a small minority who are irrational that the reason this didn't pass was not because of a cabal of evil straight white men (who we elected lol), but that there is more to the story than is being presented. I know HAI's whole gimmick is super fast did-you-know videos, but this one is obviously quite politically motivated and completely fails to address the WHY of something and the nuance, which really disappoints me. It is kind of a lie by omission that HAI is doing which sucks because I do really enjoy this channel in general
@@Lazydino59 The video is intentionally misleading to advance a political agenda.
1:35. Congress passed the amendment with a SEVEN year expiration date, not 10.
Also, by the time the 1979 "extension" happened, 5 states had already revoked their ratification. It's unclear if that is Constitutional. It never passed the 38 state threshold.
According to this video, that means you hate women.
Let;s not forget that 5 states (Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky, South Dakota) that originally ratified the ERA amendment have since rescinded or withdrawn that, so the amendment is still several states shy of the 38 required for inclusion in the Constitution.
Noting in the constitution says anything about unratifying.
@@njdevilku1340 The constitution doesn't have to say you can unratify, it just has to not say you can't unratify.
@@njdevilku1340 The Constitution doesn't say anything about ratification deadlines either but the courts have upheld both the original deadline and the extended deadline, both of which expired. If people really want an ERA, we need to start over and use the word "gender" instead of "sex" for today's world.
@@raritania7581 This isn't quite right. Because the Constitution doesn't say you can't unjoin the Union and yet it is unconstitutional to secede from it. (This is really complicated, I'm not a con law professor, but this is the case.) Arguing from silence is always a problem, but especially here.
@@jimmeade2976 Because they were bills that passed both houses and were signed into law. All they need to do is pass another law (won't be easy) as the video said.
There's another problem in that a few states ratified the ERA and then rescinded their ratification before Virginia became the 38th state to ratify, which means that only 33 states consent to the amendment at this time. Like the post-1982 ratifications, it's unclear if rescinding a ratification is valid. The only way the ERA is part of the Constitution is if the deadline is illegal, making the post-1982 ratifications count, but rescinding doesn't count.
even then it is clearly not part of the constitution NOW and it won't be part of it until it goes into effect making the entire video a lie. there are only 27 amendments not 33. as 6 of them (including the ERA) are not ratified in one manner or another.
To be clear, per the government's website any amendment that has been ratified by a state can't have their ratification removed (it says that was decided when some states wanted to remove their ratification of the 18th before it came into effect.)
Per the National Archives "In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive."
So once the Ratification has been submitted to them and proven to be correct at the time, It is Final and Conclusive as being that state's answer.
To clarify the reason they are claiming that the Deadline is unconstitutional is because article 5 says that Congress is free to propose changes to amendments without interfering with the states’ ability to ratify Amendments and that the changed amendments starts the process over.
As such, them adding a deadline after it passed isn't legal per the constitution since the version with the deadline would have to pass both sides of Congress to become the new proposed Amendment (and there is nothing anywhere saying that the new one would replace the old one without that being specifically written in the new Amendment that passed. So, if that newer version didn't get ratified the older version that was waiting could be ratified without interference.)
I don't see why the rescissions wouldn't count. The power is not prohibited to the states and any power not granted to the federal government or prohibited to the states belong to the states.
Schlafly's big problem with the ERA was actually that it would completely level the legal playing field. Not just rights, but also responsibilities - including draft registration - would apply to all regardless of sex.
cool, let's destroy the draft!
Yea, I don't see the problem with that. The draft itself is the problem. Pass this now, deal with the draft after.
@@carsonm7292 Russia and China would agree
That was one of her biggest arguments used in practice. But it wasn't her main reason. She was a hard right religious zealot who lead a group of conspiracy minded people. That is still true of the Eagle Forum today. I've had dealings with them as well, and they are among the biggest political opponents for my group that I work with.
Wow, would you look at that! Equal rights means equal responsibilities! Who would have thought?
I'm not against it, even if just symbolically, but what exactly would change if the ERA were to be passed? And don't tell me you'd be able to sue for wage discrimination, because you can already do that under the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Equal resource distribution? Title Nine covers that. Women in combat roles? We've been slowly integrating women into combat units since the 1990s, and the official ban on it was lifted in 2015.
Seems to me the only thing that would change is women could be drafted, and maybe you could argue for federal unisex bathrooms/shower facilities. It could also potentially ban a lot of the lower standards women meet for certain qualifications. Women would be expected to live up to male physical standards, which could actually result in _less_ women in combat roles, for example. All-in-all it seems like a pretty lousy hill to die on just to make a symbolic grandstand.
Women have priority in terms of child custody, that would end under the ERA. And despite the bubble that people online live in, many many women would hate having to share bathrooms and public showers with men.
@@diney7085 How would women be forced to share bathrooms or public showers with men? You are aware of strict scrutiny, right?
@@dr.johnnysins Yes. Strict scrutiny evaluates laws based on.... the Constitution. If the ERA were to be amended, it wouldn't be far-fetched to seek a desegregation of bathrooms, since those are necessarily discriminatory based on sex by their definition.
@@diney7085 Gender segregated bathrooms would 100% be legal under the ERA. Also, even if they weren't, then the govt would just modify bathrooms to be a bunch of single occupant gender neutral bathrooms. Also, this would only apply to things owned by the govt, not private businesses so the large majority of public bathrooms would actually be completely unaffected. The govt doesn't own many public showers so that would be largely irrelevant. There's also another question of who would sue to desegregate bathrooms. Somebody would maybe sue to add in some single occupant gender neutral bathrooms in addition to the traditional men's and women's, but I don't see why anybody would sue to completely desegregate.
tbf, the constitution is meant to be open to interpretation, so including it would probably be a lot more flexible in case of edge cases
wouldn't ERA mean women would forfeit lot of their rights if they fail to register for draft once they turn 18 just like men do?
Yes. And that's what equality looks like.
I'd be absolutely fine with that, personally. I'm a woman, I volunteered, and was denied at that age.
Honestly I think the way the US does this is backwards and pretty fucked up. Firstly, they require all citizens _and_ residents to sign up, meaning you could be drafted even if you don't have any of the rights of a citizen. Secondly, they force all of their male citizens to contact a hard-to-reach government office. Why can't they just have a normal residency system like every other western country, then when their citizens come of age they could just send a letter to the address they have on file saying basically "fyi we're adding you to the list for the draft. You don't need to do anything, but if you could go online and give us an email or phone number it would really help us out if we ever needed to reach you. Thanks". I mean seriously, surely there are multiple databases containing all the US citizens, it really can't be that hard.
That means equality too.
I hope so.
Shorter, and more accurate, version
"The ERA expired in 1979 falling three states short of ratification.
This has been Half as Interesting."
@halfasinteresting - Can we pin this comment please.
All the jokes and fun was removed.
Something that most people don't seem to see is that this would make unconstitutional:
1) any and all affirmative action for women, in anything that receives any government money.
2) any program that serves men and women seperetly, that has any funding or backing from government (eg: prison, prison wings, DV shelters)
3) anything government supported or at all funded that funds women's services more then men's (eg: women's health (including subsidising women's health products, gynecologists, contraceptives, maternity services, and much much more) )
4) anything that chooses women over men, government involved or at all funded (eg: child custody)
I see this as an absolute win
All of those things have a massive caveat: the government has long been allowed to limit constitutional rights if they can prove a compelling state interest met by those limitations and can prove there isn’t another narrower method to fulfill that state interest. All of those areas of law would need to be litigated in front of a federal court, and probably go up to the Supreme Court since they would involve constitutional interpretation.
A past Supreme Court case, for example, ruled that 1st amendment freedom of speech protections do not apply to material that the courts deem obscene, so the government is allowed to ban legally obscene material without any restrictions. Later cases ruled that some forms of speech are so damaging to state interests that they can be banned regardless of whether they are obscene. I can guarantee that the ERA, like every constitutional right, wouldn’t be absolute.
Most of that sounds great because the government is actively hostile to men.
I mean... getting rid of #1 would be an absolute win for women - they deserve better than to be treated like a bunch of dumb children.
@@andyhuang8010so you believe women should have more rights and privileges than men?
North Dakota also revoked their ratification so that adds even more complications on top as to whether its possible to revoke a ratification.
Sounds like a good amendment, as much as women might like to not be forced to die in wars. But it’s pretty clear that it shouldn’t count since the deadline has passed.
The deadline was part of the original vote. You can’t just say “this is what you’re voting for” then change your mind, alter a detail, and expect the original vote to be valid for the new version. If you want to extend the deadline, you need to go through the same process again but with a new deadline.
Fair, but the states didn't ratify the expiration date, only the ammendment.
Congress can pass a law tomorrow saying "lol we repeal the expiration part of that bill so it's not expired anymore go ahead and make it part of the constitution", assuming the archivist plays nice and there's no court case over it (lol, there would be).
@@subjekt5577 and also the guys who came up with that shitty idea would get assassinated in 24 hours because they are now universally hated for being retarded and doing a very stupid thing.
A technicality avoids that the population gets a bill that helps to guarantee equal rights
In many countries stuff like that is let go so the people get their rights but the people of the USA I'll find a way to deny rights lol
Based on Sam's writing... this means you don't think women should have rights.
Cuz things are clearly that incredibly simplistic.
Note: This is me being disgusted by, and mocking, this video for being Fox News levels of hypocritical bullshit.
@@BocVel any country that lets such a thing as this go had voided their right of governance by voiding the founding document and I can think of no country that has done such a thing. if challenged they would have to either create a whole new constitution or else be defecto illegally occupying their own territory. perhaps you did not learn all of the nuance of this situation from a 6 minute video. also the primary thing the ERA would do at this point is enlist women in the draft. and forcibly end several women's programs or trans programs as they tend to be for specific interest groups. which would be illegal if we are forced to treat everyone exactly the same as the ERA would. when it was first proposed most of our legal protections for women in the workforce and in public life did not exist. now the objectives of the ERA have been met and then some. this is WHY expiration dates are often added to bills. so that they don't undo progress.
If it were passed, would that mean any future military draft would have to draft women as well?
Yes, and that's a major reason why it didn't pass
Of course not. It's called Equal Rights, not Equal Responsibilities /s
@@milobem4458 Don’t lie just to add drama. It makes you sound like an edgy middle schooler.
@@alexanderwinn9407 You know what /s means right? it means it was a joke or either not a serious statement.
The "woman who oppressors women" HAI talked about used this very fact to stop it.
Don't worry if IF ERA ever passes it will have the "Hayden rider" amendment in it so women will not be drafted
The flatly delivered dry humor was even more exceptional than usual in this video.
Still waiting on a few other amendments to be added myself. Term limits for congress and set the exact number of justices to 9
Any reason you want those?
The ERA had a set deadline built into it and, like you said, the courts already previously ruled that the extension was unconstitutional. In what world would a more conservative judiciary turn about and say that getting rid of the deadline entirely is now okay?
The ERA should’ve passed, but it didn’t. That’s really all there is to it.
Alternative video title: “Sam Snarkily Defends Drafting Women for Six Minutes”
Equal rights equal fights
@@Jenkowelten They also have to open 50% of the doors propose in 50% of the marriages.
@@jasondashney huh?
@@Jenkowelten Those are two things men are "expected" to do. I just mean that if people want absolute parity and equality with no differences, then let's have it. 50% women garbage collectors, 50% ditch diggers, 50% front line combat, and 50% of the chivalry.
Congress passed it with a 7 year time limit (but in the resolution transmitting it to the states NOT in the amendment itself)
completely ignored the states that have repealed it from their constitution or reasons why women from both sides of the aisle were against it
I’m wondering if you’ll be doing a follow up video to The Queen’s Death Protocol video to see what predictions you got right.
That video was based on the Queen dying in England. She died in Scotland, so it was a different protocol.
"AP US Hegemony if you're not American"
Me still not knowing what the hell Sam's on about
That may be because most of us did not take "Advanced Placement" classes.
You forgot to put a colon so it just sounds like you're doing a caveman thing lol "me still not know*
@@wyattmiller9539 it was supposed to be something like "then there's me still not knowing..." But I see your point
Great job on leaving out all the important information.
You left out that 6 states withdrew their ratification and 2 additional states put a sunset clause in their ratification. So the archivist and congress would be in an awkward position that could open up the door to other nonsense. While at a discussion at Georgetown University in February 2020, Justice Ginsburg noted the challenge that "if you count a latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard states that said 'we've changed our minds?'"
Per the National Archives "In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive."
So once the Ratification has been submitted to them and proven to be correct at the time, It is Final and Conclusive as being that state's answer.
Some States have tried to change that, but In the course of promulgating the 14th Amendment, Congress determined that both attempted withdrawals of ratifications and previous rejections prior to ratification had no legal validity.
Some States tried to bring this to court as mentioned in the video and it was not taken up by the Courts until it was dropped. So, that 14th Amendment precedent that the National Archives made that decision off of still stands.
“I’m not going to take a stance on a hot button issue…”
Proceeds to make a whole bunch of such stances.
Sure thing.
You’ll find that a load of legislation that favors women will get erased in such a scenario.
Seriously, everthing that American feminists have been fighting for the past 20 years would be nullified immediately. No more female privilege in the courts or law would have many unintended consequences that couldn't be overridden by other laws because, well, it would be in the constitution.
?
As if that's a bad thing?
@@TroyVan6654 Others have already addressed it
The ERA sounds like something to have good intentions, yet cause a lot of unintended problems that are only discovered through hard fought court cases years later.
That's why legislation needs to spell stuff out instead of just having a few brief sentences widely open to "interpretation".
@@danielbishop1863 You don't want that because when you ban kicking, punching and slapping each other and then someone headbutts you, there's no legal recourse.
Laws are vague to apply to as many scenarios as possible also by explicitly stating everything everything that's not stated is legal giving people bad ideas.
That's exactly why most legislation is passed. So that they can look like they have good intentions now, and then exploit it years later.
@@danielbishop1863 too much specificity doesn't work the way you think it does.
oh boy can’t wait for all the respectful and civil discussion to be had in the comments section about this topic.
considering how even- handed and nuance-respecting the video itself was, I expect the comments section to be a perfect representation of what HAI posted.
well no one is obligated to respect an opinion as stupid as "gender based discrimination should be legal"
I always figured that the 14th Amendment would make the ERA redundant. The 14th Amendment does not care who you are. You are entitled to equal protection under the law. ANY law that goes against this, is at threat of being rejected in the courts for this reason alone.
No. The slight differences in wording would, for example, make women eligible for the draft which the 14th ammendment does not do.
@@PsRohrbaugh I know there are laws excluding women from the draft. Wouldn't the era mandate women have the draft?
@@Socrates3001 yes, that's what I'm trying to say. The 14th ammendment gives women protection against discrimination, but doesn't mandate equal treatment like the ERA does. So women can be excluded from the draft under the 14th ammendment but not under the ERA.
I believe the supreme court would and did disagree with you. Though they partly don't really believe in the 14th Amendment anyway
@@PsRohrbaugh Wasn't the draft ended in 1973 anyway? Can't the US simple make an amendment that states that it will uphold human rights? The first amendment of the German Grundgesetz does that. Of course, this hasn't prevented us from violating human rights, but it makes it pretty easy to point to a law that has been broken every time we do.
It had an expiration date written into it. It failed to be ratified before that. Some states actually PULLED their ratification since. Even RBG who helped author ERA, said you couldn't do it AND no longer needed it.
This felt way longer then it is. Thanks for the density
I can't imagine how dense it would have felt to you if HAI had chosen to include relevant facts like Dillon v Gloss and Coleman v Miller, or the fact that five states voted to rescind ratification (hey, if you can write in a time limit, then ignore the time limit, they you can't call "no takebacks" on states who ratified".
But that would mar the obvious goal of this video, which is NOT education.
Fairly sure there are 27 amendments
You are correct
There have been 27 ratified amendments, yes. If I recall correctly, there are 6 unratified, making the total 33.
@@Kibannn And given that this video is about an unratified amendment, it makes sense to include them in the count in this case
@@Inkyminkyzizwoz indeed. Should probably have specified though.
@@Kibannn depends on where you draw the line. According to en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proposed_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution there have been over 10,000 proposed amendments brought to Congress.
1:59 That’s not the Spanish government XD That’s the town hall of Barcelona (With the catalan flag on the left and the barcelona flag on the right)
Catalonia, however horrific the locals may feel it is, is run by Spain.
Honestly if this gets added it would likely help men more than women at this point. Given the disparity of sentencing for sex offenders depending on if they are a man or a woman, and the disparity of custody rulings in family court.
Disparity in everything favoring women.
@@kokofan50 What areas of disparity favoring men would it not solve?
Woah, how strange that the only states not to ratify the "women deserve rights" act were conservative states. Probably just a coincidence that nearly all the conservative senators opposed the "women deserve rights" act too......
name all the rights women dont have in united states
@@ramboturkey1926 if women already had as many rights as anyone else then you wouldn't care if ERA was enacted.
@@alexrogers777 yes
@@alexrogers777 No they have more rights, as any divorce court will make clear.
I had a US Government class during 2020, and we talked about this in it. I did some research and came to the conclusion that it should not be added to the constitution, not because women don't deserve rights, but because everything in it is already covered in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. I could, of course, be wrong, so it's probably good I don't work for the US Government.
So the draft as it currently stands violates section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment?
@@db7213 I'm pretty sure that that got updated very recently, like in the past couple months, so it no longer does. However, it certainly did up until then. In 2020, a case was brought before the Supreme Court by a mens' rights group to challenge it, and the court ruled in their favor. However, since the Supreme Court has no actual power, nothing happened until the executive branch got around to changing it.
33 amendments in base 8
Technically the expiration (which was 7 years; it was later extended) wasn't written into the ERA itself, but into the resolution; that's why Congress was able to extend it the first time. Other amendments have had the expiration written into the amendment itself; 6 currently have no expiration, which is why they're still pending. The 27th Amendment was one such amendment; it was passed as part of the original Bill of Rights, but it was only ratified in the 1990's.
You've got to love Virginia. The first thing you see when crossing the Key Bridge from DC is "Radar Detectors Illegal". Also funny is the fact there is no verb on the sign.
0:09 yeah that was just about apportionment (deciding how many representatives each state gets in Congress) not whether or not slaves were people.
The South actually wanted to count African slaves as full people, since that would have meant a higher population which would have entitled them to more representatives. The free states in the North didn't want to count them at all for the same reason. So they compromised and decided that they would be counted by a factor of 3/5.
It baffles me how universally ignorant mainstream liberals are of this fact.
It's like they are intentionally lying at this point
No. The Southern states wanted to consider enslaved people as property because counting them as full persons meant not only determining the number of seats in the House of Representatives and the number of electoral votes each state would be allocated, but *how much each state would pay in taxes* . And paying more taxes for enslaved people being counted as full persons was something the Southern states did not want to do. The Three-Fifths Compromise appeased them.
@@RaymondHng well, both sides did it. The south wanted them as a full person for appointing representatives but to not count for taxes while the north wanted them to not count for representatives but to count as a full person for taxes
I learned how to pronounce "Schlafly" from the Hulu series Mrs. America.
I heard how to pronounce _Schlafly_ by living through it.
Where in the Constitution does is say that amendments have to be ratified within a congressionally-defined time limit?
On one of your channels can you post a video on La Nina and El Nino and how they affect the weather?
I do wish you'd found the time to talk about the states that rescinded, or took back, their approval of the amendment.
To argue that the ERA is part of the constitution is to ignore the evidence to the contrary and assume several controversies broke your way. At this point, it's being used more for political theater by both sides than being fully pushed as a matter of policy.
You can do better in presenting this topic.
Democrats are trying to force it through the courts because they know it will overturn Dobbs vs Jackson Women's Health if passed. Thankfully SCOTUS isn't going to let that fly
The only thing that would really change if this was passed is that women would be included in the draft. There’s few other things that are not equal today. Because of this there isn’t much push to get it done.
The only thing I understood of the video was the image of the town hall of Barcelona, my city.
Love the 70s-era clips-- pink shag carpet and station wagons!
Side note: ERA passing would mean women could be drafted, Title IX would be invalid, and affirmative action based on gender would be illegal.
0:08 "...shouldn't have the 3/5 compromise"
Wait, what? While it wasn't a perfect solution (it was a compromise after all), the 3/5 compromise was a good thing because it limited the power of the slave states by only counting 3/5 of their slave population for the purpose of representation in congress. The slave states were the ones who were pushing to have the total population of their slaves counted so they would have more representation.
Contrary to popular misconception, this clause said nothing about black people being worth only 3/5 of a person. In fact, free black people were fully counted toward the population of their states.
Thank you! I cannot tell you how much I facepalm at that misconception. Its like people can’t think for 5 secs. If you supported not having it back in the day, you also supported oppressing African Americans.
Whoa, whoa now! This is the internet. We can't have any nuanced discussions about the practical implications of complicated issues. I'm going to need you to type in all caps about how this is somehow an affront to your rights and how all cops are bastards or how this is communism or something equally simple minded.
YES! Thank you.
Im really thinking Sam isn’t stupid, and is more likely saying that the 3/5 compromise should NOT have been needed in the first place.
@@austingee238 yeah that was certainly the point he was making /gen
Nice shot of Marsh Street in Downtown SLO at the end there.
I guess that swamp never got drained even a little
As a European watching this video thinking to myself "What the hell is he talking about. What are all these acronyms? What the hell is going on in the US?"
Here in the United States we hate: (this list is in no particular order)
Women, black people, mexican people, asian people, disabled people, poor people, gay people, trans people, polyamorous people, asexual people, etc.
(Just wanted to add "we" refers to the average American. I am not a misogynist, ableist, homophobe, racist, etc.)
Wikipedia gives explanations of acronyms.
He is lying through his teeth. The amendment died 40 years ago, and since then even another 5 states dropped their support for the amendment because it would mean that women would have to be in the military draft, not be able to sue for money after a divorce, nor be entitled to quotas in work or any other special treatment that they have in the current law.
Me: What?! I know Republicans can be crazy sometimes, but who in their right mind who would oppose something like the ERA?!
Me, after 5 minutes of research: Oh, it's more complicated than that, I see...
Equal rights are lame. Equal rights? Then, how about 50% of coal miners are Women, equal enough but noo always forcing men into that job just to die
Um, whenever you utter the word "Congress" a picture of the Oregon Legislative Assembly chamber (in Salem, Oregon) flashes. This isn't the first time I've noticed this. If you bought the video footage from somewhere it is certainly mislabeled.
5:06 - the floor has a carpet with the images of salmons and wheat. This is the Oregon Senate. (The House has a carpet with images of Douglas Fir trees.) The man standing behind the podium is Peter Courtney, the senate president who will be retiring at the end of this year.
The ERA wasn’t passed before its deadline. The first 35 states approved a version of the ERA with the deadline, so removing the deadline makes it a different amendment. If you want the ERA, spin up a new one without the deadline and send it through the legislatures again. Also, there should be a reason given for attempts at blocking a new ERA, and there should be a reason for passing the ERA beyond simply “it should have already been in the Constitution.” It goes both ways-do things for practical reasons that can be clearly articulated.
Yes, pass the ERA and get every single woman in the US to sign up for the draft
also level the playing field in divorce and custody courts
@@krj15489 that's never going to happen
Technically, to not do precisely what you suggested, makes genders obligated to biased government enforcement. If they identified as female to get out of the draft, you'd be mad, I'm mad females aren't eligible for draft if I am, it sounds like the draft should be modified to include everyone with leniency for family density at best. If a draft happens, which it shouldn't unless it's a local response to war on American soil, then a number of member of family should be able to stay to care for minors and stuff, but all otherwise available members of the family should go whether male or female. It's irrelevant to give just one a pass.
Of course you see that as oppression to men, and not as oppression to both men and women. The government can force men to go to war but women not being drafted is because of sexism. Of course in this case men get the short hand of the stick, getting drafted is horrible. But more often than not is women that are oppressed. You should know by now that women have to be careful about getting taxis at night in the US, a place where being robbed by a taxi driver is not common but being abused or trafficked if you're a woman is a real concern. Of course you focus on the times men are worse off became you don't want to acknowledge you have benefited from privilege at some point or that you may even have perpetuated oppression. So yeah, sure the most oppressed gender are men and Elon Musk acts for the good of humanity and not for profit.
@@Sodium_Slug
> I think it's unfair for men, merely on the basis of gender, to be forced to essentially forfeit their lives for the benefit of some government.
> yeah but did you know women are scared to call taxis at night
?????????
"Backwards and wearing heels." I do indeed see what you did there.
And what did he do there
@@codycast Reference a speech by then-Texas governor Ann Richards in which she noted (not originally, but I feel like it fits with Ann Richards): "Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, except backwards and in high heels."
@@lucykwiatek5159 yeah I’m familiar.
It's a constitutional law issue. Even a lot of people who would've been in favor of the ERA itself, don't want the legal precedent of allowing states to retroactively ratify something that has long-since gone past its deadline for ratification, and get it into the constitution. It's bad enough that there's a pending amendment with no expiration date that would increase the size of the House of Representatives by more than a thousand percent. This sort of thing is *why* they started giving them expiration dates. Even worse, in the case of the ERA, you'd be setting the precedent that a state can't make its ratification contingent upon a deadline, and *absolutely* nobody wants that precedent.
A hundred years ago, opposition to the ERA, might have been about what the ERA actually said. These days, that's not even relevant; the whole text of the ERA could be bundled into the next amendment that gets proposed, whatever that ends up being, and would not in any way reduce its chances of passing; heck, it would probably *improve* its chances of passing; but the ERA itself is politically dead for unrelated reasons.
The Congress shot is actually of the Oregon House of Representatives, not Congress.
Here I am, boosting engagement by complaining about incorrect pronunciations.
You can have a like too, I suppose.
My job is done.
It would be interesting to have both men and women in non-segregated prisons.
Interesting as in a car crash is interesting? Yes, definitely... interesting.
surely this will not bite us in the ass in 50 years in some random supreme court case
5:18 It's nice to know that Mick Jagger's drag persona Mick Dragger is a senator and supports the ERA
The ERA is basically a more specific 14th Amendment, I'm not sure it needs to be in the constitution specifically, but I also don't oppose it either.
Based on how Sam talks about people who agree that the time limit written into the law is.... yknow... part of the law... I'm pretty sure that your valid understanding of the due process amendment would make HAI categorize you as one of the people who think women don't deserve rights.
Well the 14th and 15th ammendment were passed for the same reasons in regard to the 13th ammendment since people tend to get creative when oppressing others
The ERA passing wouldn’t change much since the 1963 Civil Rights Act covers like 99% of it already. Only thing that would change would be Draft Registration and a couple random government benefits which help women specifically.
In reading the exact words of the 14th amendment it basically says that the States may not make laws that infinge on the rights of citizens or deny any person withing their jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.
The loophole here is that the Federal Government, the Counties, The Cities/towns, and weird territories like Puerto Rico and DC are not states so they theoretically could make all sorts of oppressive laws. (But likely only the Federal Government could get away with it)
So due to wording the 14th amendment only makes the states accountable for equality and not other levels of government. (Although the federal government has passed many laws that make its stance kn equallity across race/ethnicity, gender, religion, ect very clear and its illegal to discriminate in 99.9% of cases based on their list of protected qualities.)
I think the equality amendment should be included but it feels like a formality at this point.
@@jasonreed7522 your loophole for the federal government and towns is incorrect. As for territories, the US Constitution doesn't apply so of course not. But the Constitution will apply if the SCOTUS overturns the Insular Cases.
I've wondered this for a while. Glad to see a video on it
If 80,000 hours thinks we sleep more than work, they haven't seen our sleep schedules.
At 0:03, you said that there are 33 Amendments to the US Constitution. But that is flat-out wrong; there are only 27.
That depends on precisely what you're counting. There are two stages of approval for amendments. 33 made it through the first stage (2/3rds of both houses of congress, or theoretically an amendatory convention). 27 made it through the second and took effect. Do the 6 unratified amendments count as "amendments"? The very language of that question suggests that at least in certain cases they do.
"I'm not here to take a stance on controversial issues like whether humans deserve civil rights." I see that many miss the silent /s that follows many such asides in Half As Interesting videos. Of course, the first ten amendments to the current American constitution, commonly called the Bill of Rights, are exactly that. It may be that people take freedom of speech and association, and so on, for granted, but exactly because the Bill of Rights enshrined them (at least in America) two centuries ago. People sometimes forget also that the fourteenth amendment forbids the government to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", which means that the government must show a compelling interest in any distinction in how its laws apply to different people. That's a degree of protection right there.
The archivist should not decide - well does he disagree? Not the issue.
Limbo amendments are always interesting. I like reading about them.
I hope some of them become law.
As a guy, I can tell you that the ERA isn't necessary. So that's it, right? Actually, the reason I don't think it's necessary is that the Supreme Court has basically read women's equality into the Equal Protection Clause. As a result, any law that treats women differently than men. must satisfy intermediate scrutiny which is only a little easier to satisfy than Strict Scrutiny. Intermediate scrutiny requires that a law that treats women differently must further an important government interest and must do so by means that are substantially related to that interest. Strict scrutiny (which applies to laws that classify by race or restrict speech) must be narrowly tailored (meaning least restrictive) to serve a compelling government interest. I think the difference is because most people agree that there are good reasons to treat males and females differently such as requiring single sex restrooms or locker rooms. That was one of Phyllis Schlafly's most compelling arguments against the ERA, that it would lead to unisex public restrooms. Of course that was before separate facilities became so controversial.
But even if the Justice Department or the archivist decide the Amendment was ratified, it would still be up to the Supreme Court. But even noted male chauvinist Ruth Bader Ginsburg publicly said the ERA would have to start over from scratch. Somehow I doubt that the Court will be more receptive now that she is no longer there.
As someone who thinks the ERA is stupid in pointless we should probably pass it because it would open the door to whether or not Title 9 is legal.
This would be a hilarious self own considering the politics of the people who support the ERA
I don't really know anything about this amendment but judging by its wording it does sound like it could have unintended consequences. Would this mean no more woman's sports leagues? Woman have to sign up for the draft? Would men get an equal say in the abortion process? Does an exotic club have to hire male dancers?
I admit that last one is a little silly but this list was thought up only 30 seconds after hearing about this amendment proposal.
Men who get pregnant would be entitled to the same rights as women who get pregnant. I don't see a problem with that, even if you believe that men can never get pregnant.
The draft is the big kicker. The other items you brought up are (mostly) private enterprises and already have some protections built in/ (i.e. Hooters does not have to hire male waiters)
Since the draft is a government function, this would mean women are eligible for the draft. I think this was a major reason people fought it.
@@colemanmoore9871 Why should we have to have anyone fight for the draft to begin with
It is in reference to the law so for example women would have to sign up for the draft. Men likely won’t have a day in abortion but if they decide to have the kid and then custody is considered, it could make it more likely for the man to get the kid (more 50/50).
Private businesses aren’t bound by the Constitution anyway.
The only one of those things that would be affected is the draft, but that’s probably going to remain deactivated forever anyway.
I admit to not having fully read through the Era amendment, it came out when I was about 14, so, I wasn't too into that sort of thing at the time. My general feeling is that women should only do one thing: Whatever they want to do. I value my ability to make decisions for myself and a person's gender does not change a most basic human instinct we all share, the desire to be free of restrictive influences without credible reasons. Gender has nothing to do with one's ability to be rational. Above all, we are all human.
It’s sickening that in 2022 we are discussing and arguing whether or not a class of people should have equal rights.
Welcome to America :/
It's CuReNt YeAr.🤣🤣🤣
You probably should just steer clear of political topics. Too many hot takes that lack any real thought. FYI 3/5 compromise was to combat slave states and slavery not to say a slave is only worth 3/5 a person. If you think the 3/5 compromise was bad, you are taking the stance of the Confederacy.
Also, in my opinion, the ERA would likely make things worse for woman or benefit men more than the other way. Even if the draft is inactive, men's lives are still ruined by it and it is still something that needs to be reconciled with the amendment. The military as a whole needs to be reconciled with the amendment. Would it be discrimination against women to require the same physical standards as it would block women from certain roles? The current differing standards most likely is discrimination. Other than things like that, as I understand it, equality is already protected.
everyone’s talking about the controversy i was just vibing to that sax solo halfway through
Sam pronounced Schlafly wrong
I hope the ERA passes but I doubt the Court would be the one to do it
Only I know
Wouldn't the answer be to just... Start this process again?
Also, isn't the big problem this would cause be ones with the US's conscription service? Considering men have to sign up for that to vote, and women... Don't. I can't think of any other issue where this would matter at all
Bold of you to assume that I know what ratification means.
As always when it comes to covering government and politics, you butchered this one. Good job Sam.
I feel that this is a moment where you wrongfully assumed malice. I first heard about the ERA and thought that it was kind of weird anyone opposed it, but I try not to assume malice and tried to think of a reason why, and found one pretty quick.
If this were passed, there would seemingly be no legal standing to prevent women from being drafted. I'm personally against women being required to sign up for the draft, so by that reasoning, I'm actually against the ERA as well. Apparently, as evident in the example of the draft, I believe that there is a healthy level of discrimination between the sexes.
That's kind of my thinking. Why not perhaps pass smaller laws regarding different topics in order to weed out any unjust discrimination while keeping room for the discrimination that society generally accepts to be good, or indifferent to. (Sports teams, breastraunts etc.) Having an overarching cookie cutter response seems short-sighted and inevitably cause legal avalanches a few years later.
More than that... HAI didn't just assume malice. They assumed that their audience would eat up their demagoguery bullshit the same way Trump's audience buys the bullshit that Fox News feeds them.
This video is an assault to all things educational and fact-based.
Are woman equal to men or not? If they are, women should be drafted.
A healthy level of discrimination that one sex has to unwillingly die? That to me sounds like the most extreme level of descrimination you can reach, your genitalia should not be a decider whether you live or not.
Omnia mors aequat.
@@JorgenKreedz No, I do not believe that men and women are equal. I believe that everyone deserves the same fundamental human rights, but with different capabilities come different responsibilities.
From a purely logical perspective, in a doomsday apocalyptic world War situation, men become much more expendable than woman. The ability to have children and take care of them makes women incredibly valuable on the home front, while men are typically better suited to Frontline combat roles than women due to a generally larger and stronger physiology.
Men and women are different, and need treated differently in many aspects. Neither one is any more or less important than the other, but different nonetheless.
Well does gender affect your ability to operate on the battlefield? No. The drafted women will be held to the same standards as the men so who cares, this distinction is just weird.
Note that the soon-to-be-100-years-old ERA makes no mention of corresponding duties, obligations, or responsibilities. This is not an oversight; it is deliberate.
Wait I'm confused. So is Congress allowed to put an expiration date or not? Regardless of policy merits, this shouldn't be in limbo since it really boils down to that question.
Something this video fails to address is that this amendment forces selective service (the draft). Context is key. The 70s was the tail end of Vietnam. This would force women into the draft and be drafted to the most horrifying war America ever partook in. My family had several draftees who had severe PTSD, some committed suicide, etc etc. These states did not ratify the amendment because they hated women. They did it to spare them the horrors of war. Our generation never lived through nam, and our parents were just babies. We don't know what the draft is like, and as a result people like HAI are taking advantage of our ignorance and revising history to fit a modern narrarrative. Context is key, don't believe the headline of everything you read (or listen to).
Or, you know, we could just get rid of the draft altogether, completely separately from ERA, rather than conflating the two completely unrelated issues and claiming one can’t go through on account of the other existing?
@@lurrielee2755 From the dawn of civilization up until maybe a decade ago, it was well understood that citizenship was a privilege. In order to have the benefits of citizenship, you must pay the costs. Taxes is the simplest one to come to mind, and the draft is another one. Getting rid of the draft is arguably the stupidest thing a civilization can do. If someone is not willing to fight for their citizenship, they do not deserve to piggyback off of others who are. These issues are tightly related. Benefits of citizenship do not manifest themselves out of thin air, they are earned through the hard work of the people. If your answer is truly to just get rid of any cost to citizenship, may as well make there be no taxes too? The draft hasn't been activated in such a long time even your parents were likely not old enough to remember it well. That doesn't make it obsolete, but it does make it seem less important than it truly is, both symbolically and functionally
Wait, I'm dumb. Does this mean it's technically not illegal to treat women differently from men in the US?
There's federal law protecting them, just not an amendment.
@@NigelMelanisticSmith And state law in certain states.
My reading of it is that without it the government (at state or federal level) can pass laws which discriminate based on sex. As a private citizen you can in many cases treat women differently from men with or without that amendment. There are only specific cases (e.g. employment) in which you cannot discriminate based on that.
Honestly this sounds like a nothing burger to me but I might not understand all implications.
Correct, and there's at least one law in effect that does just that. If a draft were to be declared, only men would be impacted.
@@papaofthejohns5882 thanks, that's an important piece as well
Woman already have equal rights under the 14th Amendment.
Personally I consider the ERA redundant. There's already an amendment protecting women's rights, it's called the 14th amendment. We have the equal protection clause already giving everyone equal rights, women included. We don't need to pass some new amendment to grant anyone rights.
I really enjoy the subtle middle finger to the false dichotomy of bipartisanship here
I just woke up to a video about if equal rights are a thing huh
well, it is if the constitution requires it versus congress passing laws that are not sexist and state laws that are not sexist. The ammendment would allow sexist laws to go to the supreme court versus being repealed from people wanting to repeal them. It moves the power a bit. I think, im not an expert in this.
@@cbpe1234 What it does is remove the "sTaTeS rIgHtS" argument blocking laws.
@@wta1518 I mean states rights are absolutely vital too both sides of the country
@@hdjono3351 Yes, but I'm talking about the people trying to take rights away from people, and claiming to be giving them back to the states only to do a 180 and immediately try to give the power to the federal government.
@@wta1518 yeah you are absolutely right there is a serious double standard that needs too be addressed in this country
I don't get it, what does it matter if that is in the constitution or not ? If you descriminate against women you already go to jail
Bellbottoms never died 😫
Even though the content of the amendment really is not controversial or shouldn't be I don't know if it is the best idea to kinda maybe sorta an amendment onto the constitution that sets a not so good precedent and lots of headache for the future. They honestly should restart the process