 |
| Source:Hoover Institution- Firing Line With William F. Buckley, debating the Equal Rights Amendment, in 1973. |
“In this episode, conservative activist and attorney Phyllis Schlafly (1924–2016) and feminist activist and professor Ann Scott (1929–1975) go head-to-head as they discuss the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), a constitutional amendment that would have guaranteed equal rights regardless of sex. The amendment was first proposed in 1923, although support ebbed and flowed throughout the 20th century. At the time of this episode in 1973, it was unclear whether or not the ERA would be ratified. Schlafly and Scott discuss what they believe would be the consequences of the amendment if it were ratified, touching on topics such as a military draft for women, divorce and family dynamics, and economic ramifications. Schlafly campaigned vigorously against the ERA, arguing that the amendment would eliminate privileges enjoyed by women in a society that upholds traditional gender roles. Scott, meanwhile, ardently maintained that the ERA would benefit both men and women by mandating equal treatment under the law. The ERA ultimately was not ratified, and the debate continues today.”
From the Hoover Institution
"Taped on March 30, 1973 The Equal Rights Amendment was on its way to ratification, when a funny thing happened: one of the states (to be followed by others) that had ratified it rescinded its ratification. The rescission had been mobilized, as Buckley puts it, not "by sexist males but by women, many of whom on second blush are discovering in the amendment implications they regard as inimical to the best interests of American women." Like what? Like, replies Mrs. Schlafly, the draft. Wait a minute, says Ms. Scott: "if women are to be citizens and citizens are to be subject to the draft, then women should take the responsibilities as well as the rights of citizenship." Swords flash as we move from the draft to employment opportunities to child support. Whether or not our two guests will ever agree on anything, we do learn where the battle lines are drawn."
 |
| Source:Amazon- Firing Line With William F. Buckley Jr. |
From Amazon
"Guests Phyllis Schlafly and Ann Scott debate the Equal Rights Amendment. Schlafly insists the ERA will subject women to the draft and impact custody cases. Scott asserts such criticisms are misleading.
In this Battle of the Feminists episode, conservative Phyllis Schlafly and liberal Ann London Scott debate the consequences of passing the Equal Rights Amendment. Schlafly was the National Chairman of the STOP ERA campaign, while Scott was Vice President for Legislation for the National Organization for Women. Schlafly insists the ERA will subject women to the draft and impact custody cases. Scott asserts such criticisms are misleading. Scott died of breast cancer two years after this episode."
 |
| Source:IMDB- Firing Line With William F. Buckley. |
From IMDB
This photo is from a video of the Firing Line With William F. Buckley episode about the Equal Rights Amendment in 1973, with Ann Scott and Phyllis Schlafly. But that video is not currently available online right now.
 |
| Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Debating the Equal Rights Amendment in 1973. |
No American under the U.S. Constitution can be discriminated for the reasons I just laid out by the public or private sectors. That it says in the U.S. Constitution that all men meaning people, not just men, have the constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That these are constitutional rights.
And if you’re a Constitutional Constructionist like U.S. Justice Antonin Scalia, you take those words to mean exactly that. Even though our Founding Fathers when they wrote the U.S. Constitution didn’t mean those constitutional rights to apply to everyone. And things like laws attempting to block people from eating, voting, working, going to school, just because of their race, just to use as examples, are unconstitutional on their face. Because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The question is how best to enforce these constitutional rights. How best for government to enforce them. To me those enforcements are already there in the U.S. Constitution. And thanks to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, Fair Housing Law of 1968, Federal, state and local government’s, can no longer get way without enforcing these constitutional rights for everyone.
The problem during the civil rights debates of the 1950s and 60s wasn’t our Constitution. The problem was that not everyone and several states weren’t enforcing our constitutional rights equally. But those laws cleared that up and now if people are unfairly discriminated against, they can take legal and civil action against that.
People are unjustly discriminated, now have recourse with either the executive or judicial branches, they can file a complaint with either or take the people who they believed unfairly discriminated against them to civil court and get their case heard. And if they win be rewarded at the expense of the defendant, for the discrimination they suffered.
The reason why I’m not in favor of an Equal Rights Amendment, even though I’m a Liberal Democrat, because it’s not needed. It would simply be an addition to what’s already there under the U.S. Constitution. All men and women have to be treated equally under law. The law can’t discriminate based on gender or race as well as the other distinctions.
You can also see this post on WordPress.
You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended)
You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)
