Tag Archives: Constitution

Changing Our Collective Minds (And How Difficult It Is)

family, education, government, etc., , , ,

We’ve heard a lot lately about the Constitution, particularly the 2nd, 14th and 25th Amendments, and the Bill of Rights. Most of us don’t have a clue what those amendments mean, and I’m here to help. (I’m not a Constitutional scholar, nor do I play one on TV, but I do know a few things on the topic, and I’d like to share them with you. But I digress.)

The Bill of Rights

After the Constitution was written, it became apparent that it didn’t cover everything that needed to be covered. There were disagreements over ratifying (the states agreeing to) the whole Constitution, so “amendments” were needed. (There were originally 12 amendments, but they were pared down to ten. These were considered “natural rights” that the government could not take away from the people.

(Nonetheless, the Powers That Be have been chipping away at the Bill of Rights. The right to freedom of speech and the right of free assembly have been nibbled away at by the courts. For example, shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is not a protected right. And the freedom of the press doesn’t mean that you can publish anything you want. It just means that the government can’t censor or suppress your writing before it’s published. Nor does a publishing company have to publish it. You can still privately publish or say anything you want, but no one else has to publish it or agree with it. You have not been cancelled. But I digress again, at length.)

The 2nd Amendment

The 2nd amendment is under fire as well. Most people know it as the right to own guns. However, it says that a “well-regulated militia” is necessary for the protection of the country. (Unfortunately, most people who form “militias” are not well-regulated or even regulated at all. Nowadays, it generally refers to the National Guard. But I digress.) I have opinions about non-militia citizens owning guns, primarily that they should be licensed after proof of instruction on how to use them safely. I will not argue this point at this time and in this place. So don’t push me.

The 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment is now controversial, as well. It covers what is called “birthright citizenship.” This means that anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen. It sounds pretty simple, but there you have it. Some politicians and citizens feel it’s no longer needed (or maybe no longer relevant.)

I avoided an ugly argument with my brother-in-law recently by stressing that it didn’t matter what the original intent of the founders was or why it should or should not still apply (though I have opinions on those questions). I argued that those considerations don’t matter, but that if you wanted to get rid of the Amendment, there’s a process you have to go through. It involves getting both houses of Congress to agree (good luck) or two-thirds of the states to agree (also good luck). The point is that this takes a lot of time, debate, and argument. My point to my brother-in-law was that, if you wanted to get rid of the 14th Amendment, there’s a process you have to go through, and it takes a lot of time and relies on a lot of people agreeing to it. You can’t just say, “I don’t like it. Make it go away.” The only Amendment that’s ever been repealed was the one to make Prohibition go away.

(Anyway, the repeal process is also true if you want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment. But I digress still more.)

The 25th Amendment

The 25th Amendment concerns getting rid of the president. It says that if the president is no longer able to fulfill his duties, there is a process to ensure succession. First, the vice-president takes the reins. If he’s not able either, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate is next. If he’s also not able, the Speaker of the House steps in. Changing that is another process that can be long and drawn-out. It doesn’t involve simply holding a new election. It’s usually used only when the president or vice-president is under anesthesia for an operation.

The Amendments to the Constitution were difficult to add and are difficult to get rid of. My point is that when the American public changes its mind, it’s purposely not easy to change our fundamental documents. (And I’m sure if I got any of this wrong, hordes of constitutional scholars and maybe my brother-in-law will descend on me. But I digress even more.)

(Yeah, I know this isn’t funny, but I warned you in the subhead that there would be rants. Now that I have this out of my system, I’ll try to be amusing next week.)

Post-Feminism: Back to the Future

etc., government, racism, religion, social policy, Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Now that we’ve got the marriage equality question settled for all time (1), I think it’s time we turned to a brand-new, never-before-contemplated issue of social concern – women’s rights.

That’s right. We women want rights.

What rights, you ask?

Well, I dunno. There are so many.

The right to fair wages. The right to be believed when reporting a rape. The right not to be abused by a partner and to get something more than a restraining order that doesn’t work. The right to affordable, good-quality child care. The right to be represented in groups that make decisions about women. The right to have children or not, as we decide. The right to health care, mental health care, places in homeless shelters. The right not to be assaulted by fellow service members.

I could go on. So could you, I bet.

But, just as we’re now living in a post-racial society (2), I’m told we’re living in a post-feminist society.(3)

I’ve also heard that one of the reasons the Terrifying Gay Agenda (4) is having such current success is that they found a specific issue to organize around – marriage equality. Not “Treat Us Like Human Beings” or “Don’t Discriminate in Jobs and Housing” or “We Want Equal Rights.”

And those are some of the problems with the women’s movement – we’re not organized, we don’t have just one issue that we can knock off the list above, and “Change Society” is too vague.

So let’s narrow it down to one. For myself, I’d like to be mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. And that means the Equal Rights Amendment.(5) All we have to do, according to the experts at http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/, since the one proposed in 1972 was passed (6), is just get enough states to ratify it to put us over the top – three whole states.

The ones that haven’t ratified are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia. I figure Illinois is a good place to start. Then, I don’t know – Nevada? North Carolina? Virginia? What do you think?

But let’s do it. Then see what happens with all those other issues. I’m betting the ERA will have a good effect on many of them, and more besides.(7)

What’s that? It isn’t a good time to bring up women’s rights? The climate in the country isn’t conducive to the issue? There’s no chance of it happening?

Well, was it a good time to bring up marriage equality? Was the climate of the public discussion in favor of that? Was the country ready for it? Take a look at all the strict constitutionalists scrambling to figure out a way to defy the Constitution (8), and you tell me.

And to those who say that it’s an empty gesture, that an Equal Rights Amendment will make no real difference in women’s lives, think about what happened once black people were mentioned in that foundational document. No, it didn’t change everything for the better right away. But it sure got the ball rolling.

And I don’t know about you, but I sure would like to see some ball-rolling on behalf of women.(9)

(1) *snerk*
(2) *snerk* again
(3) I had a t-shirt that said “I’ll be post-feminist in the post-patriarchy.” My husband and I both wore it until you couldn’t see the letters anymore. I’d get another one if I could remember what catalog we found it in.
(4) As the joke goes, it includes brunch at 11:30, decorating committee at 4:00, and a dance at 9:00. It’s probably the dance that terrifies people.
(5) Here’s the full text:

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.

Fifty-two whole words. Scary, isn’t it?
(6) Yes, the ERA actually passed, although almost no one remembers this. It was the ratifying that did it in.
(7) Back in the day, when the ERA came around the last time, it was sneeringly referred to by some as the Equal Restrooms Amendment. Which is actually a topic that still needs addressing. Women’s bathrooms in public buildings need more stalls than men’s to achieve parity. Women need a stall for each excretory (and hygiene) function. Men conserve space using urinals; for some unfathomable reason, they’re willing to pee without walls and doors.
(8) And/or the Supreme Court. And/or the President, for that matter. Anything mentioned in the Constitution, really, except the Second Amendment.
(9) yet more *snerk*