The Equal Rights Amendment ( Era )

The constitution's 14th amendment is to protect the right of all citizens, but that does not guarantee the discrimination of the sex. The equal rights movement would make a better standard for deciding on cases of sex discrimination. The 14th amendment does not protect anyone from sex discrimination. The ERA would provide legal defense to women's rights. This amendment would help all humanity, not just women.

During the late 19th and early 20th century in America, the rise of Feminism challenged the traditional gender roles. The female authors of this time period represented realistic aspects of women’s struggles, which often reflected limitations from society and their own lives. The three female authors who advocated women’s struggles in their writings were Sojourner Truth, Willa Cather, and Edith Wharton. In the speech to the American Equal Rights Association, Truth reveals that women do not have rights to present their voices in the court. Cather addresses women’s devastating labor life after the marriage in “A Wagner Matinee.” Likewise, in “April Shower”, Wharton portrays men’s criticism upon economically successful women. American female authors of the late 19th and early 20th century demonstrates the ideas of Feminism by men objecting to representation in politics, prohibiting career over marriage, and criticizing economic self-sufficiency.

The Eros Lodge and the Eros Bar and Grill, under the scope of the law, are directly involved in interstate commerce. They are a public hotel and restaurant and open to both local citizens and citizens traveling from out of state. While their clientele may consist primarily of locals, it does not mean that out-of-state travels cannot or would not stay there. Mr. Bates, the owner, did not say he didn’t rent to travelers from out of state, he only said he wouldn’t rent to same-sex couples. However, since interstate commerce is defined as travel, trade, traffic, transportation, or communication among several states, his establishments fall under its domain – and therefore have no right to be excluded from the Equal Access Act. Discriminating against

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

The ERA was introduced in every Congress since 1923, and yet it still failed to gain ratification. The ERA was the Equal Rights Amendment, which means that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. I believe it was never passed because of many reasons. One reason was because some ERA supports got offended by other supports who were very obnoxious, which was a backlash on feminist tactics. (Doc. E & F) Another is that men and women might switch places, and it would be a threat to traditional roles.(Doc. J &M) My last reason for why the ERA was defeated is because since men and women would have equal rights, the women could also be drafted and serve the country.

The Equal Rights Amendment has struggled immensely to be enacted since its introduction to Congress in 1923. It is an amendment with a simple goal: give women equal rights. It seems like that would be easily passed, but there was a lot of opposition that heavily criticized and misconstrued the intentions of the amendment. The opponents’ rationale for their beliefs is very interesting, because their main arguments are simply not true. Using false information to misinform the public is unfortunately a very common occurrence, and it is important that the truth is available and the lies are openly debunked. By simply looking at the amendment, it is clear that opponents to it are lying to instill fear into the public.

Our 14th amendment is perhaps the most important amendment because it helps defend some of our fundamental rights. This amendment extends the due process procedure to all citizens when trying to deprive them of life, liberty, or property. The amendment also ensures that everyone born in the United States or naturalized is guaranteed citizenship. This helped grant the right to vote for many americans who before were excluded from this right. It was ratified on july 9th in 1868 following the civil war along with 13th and 15th amendment. These are known as the civil war amendments and had to be accepted by the southern states in order for them to be brought back into the union. The 14th amendment in particular was designed to protect the basic civil rights granted in the constitution to all americans. However a lot of issues have arose over time in regarding the 14th amendment equal protection clause. Movements like Black Lives Matter have brought forth some of these issues happening today. The supreme court has made interpretations of the 14th amendment in cases like Plessy vs Ferguson, Brown vs the Board of Education, and even in when overturning the case Dred Scott vs Sanford. To better understand the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause we have to take a closer look at the interpretations made by the supreme court to

Recently, in the year 2013, there was a case brought to the Supreme Court’s attention that was first trialed in the district court. That case’s name was Fisher vs. University of Texas. It was in this case that the plaintiff, Abigail N. Fisher filed suit against the University of Texas with the claim that the University had violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 13th Amendment. The main question that arose in the question was, “does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit the consideration of race in undergraduate admissions decisions”. The overall decision of the Supreme Court was that the University of Texas hadn’t violated the Equal Protection Clause, and in fact that they were permitted to consider race in the admissions process. I do agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. I agree with said decision because the argument made by the plaintiff Fisher was weak, and the rights of life and liberty weren’t in any way tampered with in the admissions process that the University of Texas was going through in the situation suited.

Freedom and civil rights have always been a thorn in America history for a long time ago. Racial unfairness and humanity deprivation was what most colored American people suffered most back in the day. Although the government aimed and worked for equality among every citizen, there is no point to deny that it has failed countless time in the past. However, just because the government failed to acknowledge the rights of colored citizens doesn’t mean that it can stay that way forever and that exactly what the Supreme Court did in the case of Loving V Virginia.

Lawrence and Garner approached the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals in November of the following year, by June of 2000 the three-judge panel decided in their favor, the Texas statute was considered unconstitutional. Justice John S. Anderson and Chief Justice Paul Murphy had decided that the statute violated the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment of the Texas Constitution, which bans discrimination based on race, color, sex, and national origin. It was a 2-1 ruling, Justice Harvey Hudson dissented. The Court of Appeals reviewed the case, and on March of the following year, the ruling was reversed and the law’s constitutionality was upheld with a 7-2 decision. The equal protection and substantive due process arguments were denied. After that loss,

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) “I never doubted that equal rights was the right direction…. to me there is nothing complicated about ordinary equality” (Alice Paul). Alice Paul, a very prominent figure in our history, was the one who said this quote. Born on January 11, 1885, she was part of many political achievements towards equality, but one of the most long lasting things she did was write the Equal Rights Amendment, also known as ERA. The Equal Rights Amendment was proposed in 1923 and the amendment still has been brought up in every congressional meeting to be discussed.

In order to be on the same page as other major cities across the United States, motions were made over a year ago in Houston to pass an equal rights, anti-discrimination ordinance known as the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO). At last a decision was made, and on November 3rd, 2015, HERO was struck down by 61 percent of the voters by referendum (Fernandez). The premise of the anti-discrimination ordinance is similar to those of other cities across the nation; to prevent discrimination on the bases of 15 different classes including race, age, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Houston’s mayor Annise Parker, who identifies as gay herself, was a strong supporter of the proposition for equal rights, and as all supporters in the Houston area agreed, it would put Houston on the map of inclusive and tolerant cities (Fernandez). On the other side of the argument is the conservative population of Houston. With the majority of political opinion in the Houston area being that of highly conservative leaning, HERO proved to be a controversial ordinance for many of these individuals. In an effort to increase support for opposing HERO, conservative politicians in the Houston area therefore took advantage of conservative ideals to promote a counter-position to the anti-discrimination laws (Ura).

By the summer of 1865, the United States of America emerged from one struggle directly into another. After years of tension over state rights and slavery, the nation had exploded into a civil war, only to emerge bloodied but still intact. The question now was how to keep the nation intact, while protecting the freedmen and ensuring that the same powers that had ignited the war could come back to power. To Garrett Epps argues in his book Democracy Reborn: The Fourteenth amendment and the Fight for Equal Rights in Post-Civil War America that the 14th Amendment passed by the 39th Congress of the United States was the penultimate reaction to ensure that recently freed slaves were guaranteed the rights of a citizen, and more importantly, to

HERO, the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, according to the City of Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (2014), covers nondiscrimination against sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity, and pregnancy. The ordinance lists sections of protection within city services and employment, contracting with the city, public accommodations, private employment, and housing (Exh A, 2014). (Ord. No. 2014-530, § 2(Exh A), 5-28-2014)

The first major milestone in equal opportunity was in 1961 when President John F. Kennedy passed Executive Order 10925. This bill encouraged all federal contractors to accept any worker, regardless of race, sex, religion, or national origin. A few years later, after Lyndon B. Johnson had taken office, the Equal Rights Act of 1964 was passed that, along with other laws that benefited minorities, prohibited large companies from discrimination within their workforce. In 1968, after Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, Va., the Supreme Court enforced full desegregation of schools in the southern states. After Richard Nixon was elected, he introduced Order No. 4 in 1970, which pushed companies to begin using their “underutilized” minority