Fried Chicken posted:

Illinois Senate passed the ERA yesterday, it now goes to the House. Given that the house ratified it in 2003 and George Ryan spiked it, it probably has a good shot. That would put it at 36 if the 38 states needed to ratify.

Of course Congress slapped a deadline of June 30th 1982 on the original ratification push, so if they get the other 2 states (and Virginia looks likely) it will be an interesting constitutional question. Same with 5 of the states rescinding their ratification.

quote:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Amused to Death posted:

Anyone have a roll call of the failed vote to repeal the AUMF?

Jimbozig posted:

I went to look up the ERA to see what in particular is controversial about it.

This is the full text:


So. I'm still confused. I thought that even most republicans would agree that women and men deserve to be treated equally under the law. What's the deal?

Jimbozig posted:

I went to look up the ERA to see what in particular is controversial about it.

This is the full text:


So. I'm still confused. I thought that even most republicans would agree that women and men deserve to be treated equally under the law. What's the deal?

Jimbozig posted:

I went to look up the ERA to see what in particular is controversial about it.

This is the full text:


So. I'm still confused. I thought that even most republicans would agree that women and men deserve to be treated equally under the law. What's the deal?

Jimbozig posted:

So. I'm still confused. I thought that even most republicans would agree that women and men deserve to be treated equally under the law. What's the deal?

mdemone posted:

What a useful parallel you've drawn between a theoretical left-wing construct and a political party that controls a legislative house of the most powerful empire in history.

Jimbozig posted:

I went to look up the ERA to see what in particular is controversial about it.

This is the full text:


So. I'm still confused. I thought that even most republicans would agree that women and men deserve to be treated equally under the law. What's the deal?

zoux posted:

I wonder why Julian Castro is getting all this ink and his twin brother Joaquin, a Texas Congressman, is getting zero ink. You'd think the D's would try to be promoting both of them just as hard.

tbp posted:

Perhaps the latter see their party as one?

Swan Oat posted:

I couldn't find any pictures of his katana but I read an article mentioning that he has at least one on the wall of his office.

ChaosSamusX posted:

Someone incapable of any sort of tact, humility or common sense.

ChaosSamusX posted:

The only person who would stand by this would be someone incapable of any sort of tact, humility or common sense.

Ted Cruz posted:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said Thursday that Democrats are making moves to repeal First Amendment rights to free speech and religious liberty.

Cruz was speaking to pastors at a Family Research Council conference when he warned that Democrats were moving to quash political speech and "muzzle" pastors and their communities, according to video of a portion of Cruz's speech posted online by Right Wing Watch.

“I'm telling you, I'm not making this up," he said as the audience offscreen gasped. "Sen. Chuck Schumer [D-N.Y.] has announced the Senate Democrats are scheduling a vote on a constitutional amendment to give Congress the plenary power, the unlimited authority to regulate political speech. Because elected officials have decided they don’t like it when the citizenry has the temerity to criticize what they’ve done."

Cruz was referring to a proposed constitutional amendment from Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) that would reverse recent Supreme Court rulings invalidating campaign finance limits, including Citizens United and McCutcheon. Schumer said the Senate would vote this year on the constitutional amendment, which seeks to capitalize on the unpopularity of the Citizens United decision in an election year.

The text of the amendment gives Congress the "power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections." Cruz said that 41 Democrats signed on to what he characterized as an all-out effort to "repeal the First Amendment."

"It explicitly says, 'nothing in this new amendment shall abridge the freedom of the press.' So the New York Times is protected, but it doesn't say the same thing about the freedom of speech, it doesn't say the same thing about religious liberty," he said. "What it says is that politicians in Washington have unlimited constitutional authority to muzzle each and every one of you if you're saying things that government finds inconvenient."

A speech writer and senior aide to Cruz, Amanda Carpenter, sent out a series of tweets Friday that claimed Democrats want to "repeal" the First Amendment "as written:"

Raskolnikov38 posted:

Hmm Cruz has been the quiet side recently, what's he up to?


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ted-cruz-democrats-repeal-first-amendment

Raskolnikov38 posted:

Hmm Cruz has been the quiet side recently, what's he up to?


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ted-cruz-democrats-repeal-first-amendment

DemeaninDemon posted:

Ted Cruz: buying elections counts as religious liberty.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

Hmm Cruz has been the quiet side recently, what's he up to?


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ted-cruz-democrats-repeal-first-amendment

Raskolnikov38 posted:

Hmm Cruz has been the quiet side recently, what's he up to?


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ted-cruz-democrats-repeal-first-amendment

quote:

Section 1. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on:
(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office;
and
(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
Section 2. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, each State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on:
(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office;
and
(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.
Section 4. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:

He's 100% correct.

mdemone posted:

He's 100% wrong. There, now that we've both made assertions, since you went first I think your justification should go first. It's only proper.

Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:

Restricting "spending in support of or opposition to candidates" means that I can't so much as buy a political lawn sign without Congress' permission. hth

Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:

Restricting "spending in support of or opposition to candidates" means that I can't so much as buy a political lawn sign without Congress' permission. hth

Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:

Restricting "spending in support of or opposition to candidates" means that I can't so much as buy a political lawn sign without Congress' permission. hth

Swan Oat posted:

Lester Shy posted:

Why is he wearing two watches?

Swan Oat posted:

I couldn't find any pictures of his katana but I read an article mentioning that he has at least one on the wall of his office.

mdemone posted:

Even if that were an accurate reading of the bill, you need to elaborate on why that's a bad thing.

My justification, as promised:

Speech is fundamentally a relationship between humans (and is perhaps the quintessential example of the category). Money is the sine qua non symbol of the reification of relations-between-people into relations-between-things, ergo money is the antithesis of speech, no matter what sheltered, quasi-fascist bigots like John Roberts and Antonin Scalia think. Hope that helps.