14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause Does Not Prevent Sex Discrimination

Still today, sex discrimination is still an ongoing event. We still need the passing of the ERA. Although, since then women's rights have improved. Women are still not equal to men. If it came down to it men would still be chosen over a women. We, as women should still fight for the ratification of the Equal

The Equal Rights Amendment, which was introduced in 1923, was a movement for women’s rights that ultimately lasted until 1982. The Equal Rights Amendment is discussed in our textbook, America, A Concise Theory, on page 898. This particular site was chosen because it comes directly from the website dedicated to the history of the Equal Rights Amendment. The amount of informative content and photos was also a factor in choosing this website.

Current laws to prevent sex discrimination just aren’t enough. The federal laws and regulations contain many loopholes and they are inconsistently interpreted, or even ignored. Women who seek enforcement of these laws must not only convince the courts that discrimination has occurred, but that it even matters. An Equal Rights Amendment would not only guarantee equality, it would take the burden off women fighting discrimination and hold those who discriminate accountable.

In 1921, women were granted suffrage, but suffragists were still hungry for more. Knowing that the right to vote would not eliminate sex discrimination in America, Alice Paul wrote the Equal Rights Amendment to step closer to equality. After half a century of struggle, women in America are still fighting for rights that men were given to when they were born. Even though women are just as intelligent, capable and hardworking as men, if not more, they are not considered an equal under the U.S. Constitution. Can you believe that today, in the 21st century, we still degrade women and treat them as inferiors to men? Can you believe that just because you are a woman, you are less than equal to the male population? Look around you, all those boys and girls are not equal to each other under our “just” country’s laws. As it is long overdue, the Equal Rights Amendment should be ratified because there is no other amendment that talks about sex discrimination, it would eliminate any inequality in regards to sex, and it would make the judicial stance on sex discrimination cases much clearer.

On July 9, 1868 the 14th amendment to the constitution was ratified. This amendment granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States," which included former slaves recently freed. Although the slaves were freed, there was still discrimination all around them. Discrimination is defined as "differences between things or treating someone as inferior based on their race". In 1800’s through 1900 there was a huge amount of cases that occurred due to violations of the 14th Amendment. Two well known landmark Supreme Court cases involving the 14th Amendment are Plessy vs. Ferguson and Brown vs. Board of Education.

Given these stereotypes the advantages of attending a historically black college or university transcend the disadvantage.

The Equal Protection Clause derives from the Fourteenth Amendment, which specifies “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” As a part of the Reconstruction Amendments, the aforementioned clause was meant to ensure racial equality in the Reconstruction Period and has been applied successfully against the affirmative action. Introduced in United States v. Carolene Products Co., the strict scrutiny has been applied to the cases, in which a fundamental constitutional rights have been infringed or a government action applies to a suspect classification (i.e. race, religion, national background). Specifically, in regards to Bakke v. Regents of University of California, the Supreme Court (“the Court”) concluded that, considering that the University of California, Davis received several Caucasian applicants for its special admission program in 1973 and 1974 and that none of the applicants received the admission to the program since the start, the program unfairly administered in favor of minority races and, therefore, violated the rights of the white applicants under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, from Hopwood v. State of Texas, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled under strict scrutiny that, the affirmative action imposed by the University of Texas School of Law (“the law school”) violates the Fourteenth Amendment since neither the law school nor the University of Texas system has proved a proof of

There’s a clause called the Hayden Clause that was added to the Equal Rights Amendment in hopes that it would ease the process of becoming accepted. The clause stated that: "Nothing in this Amendment will be construed to deprive persons of the female sex of any of the rights, benefits, and exemptions now conferred by law on persons of the female sex." Since people wanted full

What if you were told that there may be a law created intended to remove discrimination between the sexes in education and sports, or that in the matter of athletics and job occupations both men and women are given equal opportunities? Would you then agree or disagree with the ideology that both sexes are still treated different even though this law was created and the opportunities that were promised aren’t precisely indistinguishable? Title IX is not an accurate protection of sexual discrimination\, it doesn't give equal opportunities, and is unjust as far as benefits between male and female sports. Although this law allows men and women to participate in the same sports and educational fields, it

Females were upset when they weren’t included in the amendment. The Declaration states, “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” However still excluding women aren’t giving them rights, life, and happiness. Here America isn’t living up to its promises as well.

still lag behind men, we need an Equal Rights Amendment more than ever (Hennessey 3). The real issue, claim some supporters, is the "right to bodily integrity, and without this basic right, women can have no true freedom" (NOW 2). Legal sex discrimination is not a thing of the past, and the progress of the last forty years is not irreversible without the protection of an amendment (Francis 1).Feminist claim that "The ERA's most valuable effect would be the psychological victory it would provide women" (Steiner 35). Women are underpaid in the workforce, required to pay higher insurance premiums and are half as likely as men to get pensions (NOW 4). Supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment remind us of a traditional assumption, ‘Men hold rights and women must prove that they hold them" (Francis 2). Supporter claim amazement that, "Even in the twenty first century, the United States Constitution does not explicitly guarantee that all the rights it protects are held equally by all citizens" (Francis 4). Supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment believe that "unless we put into the Constitution the bedrock principle that equality of rights cannot be denied or abridged on account of sex, the political and judicial victories women have achieved with their blood, sweat and tears for the past two

Can you imagine living in a time where your friend, sister, or even yourself could legally be kept from attending a school, participating in a sport, or being a student in a classroom, because of being a woman? Before 1972 and the passage of Title IX, this was an everyday occurrence in the United States. Title IX, which has been a successful attempt at obtaining equal rights for women and men in education systems, has been a source of controversy ever since the passing of the clause. As discussed in an article from The United States Department of Justice, "Overview of Title IX," the clause was made to stop the flow of government money that was funding discriminatory practices in U.S. schools. The act covers aspects of science, sports, standardized

The Equal Rights Amendment’s main focus previously was civil rights being denied based off of their sex. SInce the late 1900’s

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable discrimination. It required the state to treat each person within its jurisdiction with the same manner as others with similar condition and circumstances. The Equal Protection Clause reads to protect against the discriminatory use of classifications besides race and national origin, in areas outside of race discrimination, the equal protection clause was not traditionally a major consideration. Usually, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases [1].

Substantive due process and equal protection require review of subastance of the law or other governmental action rather than review of the procedures used. When a law of action limits thelibeity of all individuals to do something it may violate substantive due process; when a law or action limits liberty of some individuals but not others then it may violate the equal protection clause. In this case because it’s only applying to motorcycle operators and their passenges than it raises some equal protection issues (Cross, Frank B. and Miller, L., 2012). This statue is more state interest to protect others and promote safety.