Since the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has not been ratified, I wonder if there are certain rights that men have that women don't have. Corporate personhood gives corporations certain rights intended for people. Are there any rights that corporations have that women don't have?
If so, that alone would rally the pro-ERA forces to expose corporate personhood and help ratify the ERA.
I made two video questions on corporate personhood for the presidential candidates. Please watch and rate them to increase their chances of being selected. Adding your comments would be nice, too.
1) Please go to CommunityCounts.us and click on the word ANSWER highlighted in green above my two videos, and,
2) Please go to ABCNews.com/debate and click on then click on the right-most of the five stars to give my video the best rating.
Since our elected representatives have refused to ratify the ERA, perhaps it's time for women and men to bypass our elected representatives and do it ourselves.
Go to ni4d.us, watch the five minute video, then click on the VOTE link and vote for the National Initiative for Democracy. The ERA would be a great first initiative.
Since the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has not been ratified, I wonder if there are certain rights that men have that women don't have.
Standing at a urinal? Equal rights are Federally guaranteed by the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
This is the Equal Protection clause which has been expanded and codified by judicial fiat.
quote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Nineteenth Amendment was the suffrage amendment. It expanded privileges and immunities to rights with respect to voting. I suppose it's a legal technicality thing.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
Originally posted by Sawdust: It expanded privileges and immunities to rights with respect to voting. I suppose it's a legal technicality thing.
But if the 14th Amendment provided all these rights, why did they need to be "expanded" with the 19th Amendment?
Just because it's written in the Constitution doesn't make it so. Consider Article V of the Constitution which says, "on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, [Congress] shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments...." Every state has made such an application. In total more than 500 applications have been made. And yet, Congress has yet to call a Constitutional Convention! Sure, they claim "a legal technicality thing" by saying all the applications didn't come in at the same time and weren't worded the same. But where in the Constitution does it say these state applications have to come in at the same time and be worded the same? Nowhere. It's a legal technicality thing.
But if the 14th Amendment provided all these rights, why did they need to be "expanded" with the 19th Amendment?
The 19th cleaned up the language of the 14th. Rights and priveledges mean different things legally.
You won't ever see another constitutional convention. It's too much work for government and the Congress has invented creative ways to use the commerce clause to get what they want to do done anyway.
Bottom line, they just do what they want anyway. Why have a constitutional convention when they don't feel bound by it?
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
Originally posted by Sawdust: The 19th cleaned up the language of the 14th. Rights and priveledges mean different things legally.
So if the 19th Amendment cleaned up language regarding voting and sex, doesn't that same language need to be cleaned up regarding everything else and sex?
Here's the 19th Amendment in total:
quote:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
I agree, "they just do what they want anyway." Sadly, as a whole, we're too apathetic to stop them. That's why I like the National Initiative because it doesn't take a sense of urgency - just a lot of signatures. As long as enough of the original signers are still alive and living at the same place by the time the last person signs, it's still a go. I'll probably be dead by then.
Transparancy! Interaction! Consesnsus! True Economy!! Hey! As Senator Kuscinich has said, "There is no compromise on equality." A U.S. citizen cannot have a 'degree' of equality, in a given public or private situation. What could he mean? For achieving equality, We The People, must strive for domestic conditions in which folks DO NOT understand aggregate statistics as tying them to being denied civil rights in the past, to preserve their loyalty to the Constitution. "All men are created equal", seems to indicate equality NOW, and equality TOMORROW!, (and for evermore!!). Sensibly, how does Madison Avenue try to market the equality of, "...all men,"?? They don't. They fail. A corporate marketing approach may imply FAR TOO MANY complications, or subjunctive conflicts; I would suggest that is far more problems than the Market or the People need to worry about! Then the suffering, and the incarcerations endured, and the starvation and torture of Patriotic American Women during the Sufferage Era may have been absolutely necessary for them to experience; these heros were called to save American Families from the Market System, which since its inception, knew of no other way than human oppression, short of outright slavery. Congress must quickly and at long last, consider and pass the Equal Rights Ammendment!! p.s. meanwhile, Democrats should sensibly advocate transparancy in our overall political system; our reps should be routinely found in their districts listening and interacting p.p.s. Republicans should advocate for a large proportion of political consensus decisions and support a good business model, which might consist of limited inventory, and assets!!! Equality! Equality! Equality! Equality!
This message has been edited. Last edited by: GoodBusiness,
Posts: 582 | Location: New York City | Registered: 13 February 2007
Individuals are legally responsible for their views. Messages or parts of messages may be quoted or read on the radio, or reprinted in Thom's books and other materials.
Discussion Community 
then click on the right-most of the five stars to give my video the best rating.
