![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The article needs to be re-voiced in the past tense. The ERA was a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is not currently a proposed amendment, as the tone of the article suggests. The distinction is legally important.
On 25 September 1789, Congress dispatched the first twelve articles of amendment - the so-called Bill of Rights. The articles proposed as Amendments III through XII were ratified together on 15 December 1791; thus, they became part of the U.S. Constitution as Amendments I through X.
On 8 May 1992, the second of the 12 articles from 1789 was finally ratified and became part of the U.S. Constitution as Amendment XXVII. This was possible because the Congress did not assign a time limit for ratification when it proposed the first 12 articles of amendment in 1789.
The first of those 12 articles still has not been ratified (and most likely won't be), but ratification remains a legal possibility. There are also a number of other articles of amendment that were proposed prior to the 20th century that might theoretically still get ratified because Congress attached no deadline to them.
But that was not the case with the ERA. Like almost all articles of amendment proposed by Congress in the 20th century, it had to be ratified within seven years; or it was automatically nullified. As that deadline approached in 1979, Congress passed a resolution extending the deadline by three years. The ERA finally became a nullity in 1982, three votes shy of ratification.
In order for the ERA to become a proposed amendment again, the Congress must introduce it again (or a national constitutional convention must be held that introduces it) and dispatch it to the states for ratification by 38 of the 50 states.
The ratification process will need to start all over from the beginning. The previous 35 ratifications will not count because they were for the previously proposed article of amendment. When that proposal became a nullity in 1982, its ratifications also became a nullity.
Since this article is about the previously proposed article of amendment, which is now a nullity; this article should be voiced in the past tense. When the ERA is proposed again, 1) it will be a completely new proposed article of amendment that is part of a new process of ratification, and 2) it may or may not use the same language as the original ERA. Now would be a good time for proponents of a new ERA to consider how that proposed article of amendment might be worded. 73.162.218.153 (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Equal Rights Amendment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Equal Rights Amendment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
The earlier women's movements were similar but not identical to feminism, and they did not call themselves "feminists." Burressd (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
In the late 1970s, South Dakota passed a resolution saying its ratification of the ERA would terminate as of March 22, 1979. I believe this counts as a rescission, even though it was delayed, and have a source (see page 41 of PDF. Gregory Watson claims that this counts as sunsetting, but not rescission. He claims rescission must be immediate. I edited the article to reflect South Dakota as having rescinded, but was reverted by Gregory Watson. I want to read from other editors. Is a delayed termination of a ratification a rescission via sunsetting or is it only a sunsetting? SMP0328. (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I would like to recommend a new category for Nevada and Illinois on the map, as Ratified - Posthumously, given that these are symbolic ratifications and makes the map look confusing with them blended together with proper valid and timely ratifications of the 70's. Select a different color, perhaps deep red or yellow or purple. - 67.0.200.106 (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Any objections if I work to remove this section? Its somewhat hard to parse (including the section title) and puts a lot of emphasis on the details of South Dakota's actions. I suggest adding SD to the list of rescinded states above, and including explanatory text similar to what Tennessee has now to note the differences between the sunsetting/rescinding SD did and the more straightforward rescinding of the other states. But including a whole section for this seems excessive, as do the details about what the resolution was named after being presented to the senate, court cases that occurred years after SD's resolution passed, etc.ArkF (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Should this section be titled "State equal rights clauses" or "provisions"? Of those listed, only one is in the form of an amendment. —Tamfang (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
It looks like there have been edits back and forth about the tense of the first sentence, now stated in an awful form: "is or was[note 1]". I believe that the tense should be present, given that it is a proposal under active consideration (regardless of its legal status). Also, other proposed amendments use a present tense: School Prayer Amendment, Flag Desecration Amendment, Single subject amendment. Minding (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
X1\ (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mathmitch7, could you please say more about what needs to be updated in this article? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for responding! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
read the criticisms page. the narrator is actually inserting her/himself into the discussion of those criticizing the equal rights act. is this what wikipedia has become? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:CE80:89E0:9890:68DF:C619:F006 (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)