|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but not only am I not convinced by "Ms." Blumner, I also must question the wisdom of Anonymous' "supporting instead the equality of all via the 14th Amendment." I would *never* base any claim of rights on the so-called "14th Amendment."
Read it: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...." [Emphasis added.] Our ancestors (well, mine, anyway) fought a long and painful war precisely to establish that they were *not* "subject to" anyone or anything--not the King of England, and certainly not the new Republic they founded with their blood.
Before 1868 no one in the United States was "subject" except those bound in servitude; after the "Civil War," which essentially transferred ownership of those subject persons to the federal government, the "14th Amendment" was promoted as a way of giving them the rights of free citizens. What it actually did was establish a new class of citizenship, "subject to the jurisdiction" of "the United States"; in the years since, (nearly) all Americans, white, black or whatever color, have been lured and legislated into this second-class citizenship, which has been the basis of all the governmental mischief of the last century and more, including all the feminist (and other) special preferences.
Before 1868, the government was already barred from "supporting benefits for one race of Americans over another"--or any form of preference for any group of citizens. In fact, the government was not in the business of "benefits" at all, being limited to its legitimate functions as specified in the Constitution. "Protection against government-sponsored sex discrimination" was not considered a "fundamental right," as it was already covered in the truly fundamental rights of life, liberty and property. See the (legitimate) 9th and 10th Amendments for all the law needed to prevent federal government encroachment on citizens' rights.
Since the 14th Amendment, however, everything has changed. Now that we're all wards of the State, incapable of providing for ourselves, we have no rights (regardless of what lying politicians may say), only whatever priviliges our loving Master sees fit to allow us. And naturally, if we can be kept busy fighting amongst ourselves over who gets what "rights," we may never notice that we are all slaves. It's called "divide and rule": the exact reason why men and (real) families are under attack.
This "ERA for Men" proposal merely shows how complete the feminist/socialist victory has been; now they will generously allow us a share of their goodies if we will agree to be "equal" as victims. It's a trap; the comforts of slavery are not worth the cost. An "ERA for Men" will be the final nail in the coffin of American manhood.
(For background on the "14th Amendment" and associated topics, see "USA the Republic". "The truth shall set you free.")
Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not in favor of the 14 Amendment for reasons
well stated by Andrew above. However, the ERA does
not mention the 14 Amendment but states:
Section 1. Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.
Punishments are inherently related to rights; if 16 men are sent to prison for every woman, what does that say about the equality or disparity of rights? For that reason I don't think the feminists wanted the ERA to pass. They just wanted to hold it out there as long as they could as evidence of their supposed unfair treatment.
Flinging their own tactic back in their face might not be a bad idea. If nothing else, we could "amuse ourselves" listening to feminists explain why it should not be passed.
I will just add that some of the interpretations
applied to the 14 Amendment are not accurate and are the product of judicial activism. For example, I will quote from elsewhere:
"To see why affirmative action is illegal on the basis of race we go to Strauder v. West Virginia (1879) per Justice Strong to examine the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment:
"That the West Virginia statute respecting juries--the statute that
controlled the selection of the grand and petit jury in the case of the
plaintiff in error--is such a discrimination ought not to be doubted.
Nor would it be if the persons excluded by it were white men. If in
those States where the colored people constitute a majority of the
entire population a law should be enacted excluding all white men from
jury service, thus denying to them the privilege of participating
equally with the the blacks in the administration of justice, we
apprehend no one would be heard to claim that it would not be a denial
to white men of the equal protection of the laws. Nor if a law should be
passed excluding all naturalized Celtic Irishmen, would there by any
doubt of its inconsistency with the spirit of the amendment....
As to why the amendment does not apply women we continue with Strauder:
"We do not say that within the limits from which it is not excluded by the
amendment a State may not prescribe the qualifications of its jurors, and
in so doing make discriminations. It may confine the selection to males,
to freeholders, to citizens, to persons within certain ages, or to persons
having educational qualifications. We do not believe the Fourteenth
Amendment was ever intended to prohibit this. Looking at its history,
it is clear it had no such purpose. Its aim was against discrimination
because of race or color." (italics added)
The Equal Rights Amendment would need to have been passed to achieve
what feminists want, however, since women have more rights than men in
so many other areas, the Equal Rights Amendment, if applied as written,
would have given more rights to men than to women, so feminists selectively
target only areas where they believe men still have the advantage, thus leaving
areas of feminine superiority alone.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
