- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 31, 2012 at 3:48 am #755411
miwsParticipantJust because there are Constitutional Rights, doesn’t mean that everyone adheres to them.
Why fear proposed, tougher gun laws, kootch? The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms.
Your rights aren’t being threatened, because, Constitutionally, they can’t be threatened.
Mike
May 31, 2012 at 4:37 am #755412
kootchmanMemberBecause miws…. the constitution states there is no room for “tougher” laws… “we” are granted those rights…. you guessed it… to be able to resist the motivations of government. Finally the court state the undercurrent…. we need the arms to prevent what is rapidly developing… and all powerful state with a population unable to resist.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Moreover, the prefatory clause’s history comported with the Court’s interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists’ concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.
Yep… to the chagrin of liberals the courts would prefer to keep us firearm laden… to overcome an overwhelming power of the state. Equally or better armed.
May 31, 2012 at 7:10 am #755413
JanSParticipantoh, Mike…sigh..
May 31, 2012 at 2:49 pm #755414
miwsParticipantMay 31, 2012 at 2:54 pm #755415
JoBParticipantkootch..
state laws discriminating against women have always been constitutional.
in these United states women were effectively the property of their nearest male relatives which in many cases meant their underage sons until most state laws changed mid last century.
in many states they couldn’t hold property independently if married.
they couldn’t work without the written permission of their husbands… and that was true as late as 1970.
they could be beaten, starved, put out for any kind of labor and in some states killed without consequences for the nearest male relative who beat, starved, pimped or killed them.
The constitution didn’t protect them much at all.
That was the reason for the Equal Rights Amendment…
i will agree that those things no longer happen in the United States today…
but there is no constitutional reason why they couldn’t.
the fact that men grant us rights today doesn’t mean they always will.
the Equal Rights Amendment has not been ratified. There is still no constitutional right to equality for women.
i don’t care how you tap dance around that.
It’s still a fact.
May 31, 2012 at 6:31 pm #755416
kootchmanMemberThe constitution is not a gender document, Dance around that all you wish, it’s a fact. The equal protection clause has been clarified over and over again.
You, can’t then, as I asserted, show me a right you are denied. Let’s throw one in for red headed. freckled, too short, too tall, big nosed, obese, .. the reason they can’t happen, is the 14th amendment.
You are looking for a gesture of no consequence. We know where that leads. Sorta becomes like the tax code…. everyone starts to carve out entitlements, favors, preferences, until it is no more a founding document of principals, but a vote getting overreach.
Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. See that clause “all people”?
In fact, women and other classes have legislative preferences now. The courts are reversing some of them, as … denying males equal protections. Go figure eh?
You cannot show a right you are denied that requires an gender specific exception or protection. It’s in the rearview mirror.
May 31, 2012 at 7:14 pm #755417
JanSParticipantIt’s so interesting that you harp on the 14th Amendment, passed in 1868, as all protective, yet legislation had to take place first in 1954 Brown vs. Board of Ed…to end segregation, because the constitution didn’t protect all of the people all the time, and then Reed vs Reed (1971), supposedly ending discrimination on the basis of sex, because the constitution actually didn’t protect all of the people all of the time. What is written on paper, and what actually happens are not the same. You can’t change that. But it can be pointed out over and over again…
and as equal the treatment as you say the 14th gives every, so nothing else is needed…it specifically only gave the right to vote to only male citizens over the age of 21. Not all citizens…male citizens…so right off the bat the amendment was flawed, and didn’t really extend equal protection to all of the people.
Imagine that…the constitution was flawed…and laws had to be implemented to include women in that. Wonder why it only specified males in the original…because women were lesser citizens? That mentality still exists in places…and you can argue “equality” all you want, until you’re blue..or red…in the face…but what is simply is not what’s supposed to be sometimes…
June 1, 2012 at 1:42 am #755418
kootchmanMemberAnd… when it was brought before the cours…it was found to be? unconstitutional, overturning Plessy v Ferguson. It’s also illegal to use spot lights to hunt deer at night. But, damned if some people do it anyway. We corrected the constitution, despite the objections of the Democratic Party, and the civil rights act was enacted. Funny thing, Brown v Board of Ed… and you still think equal means equal? OK then…. now Plessy v Ferguson had evidence, statistics, and state law… still see no laws that require the ERA… in fact. Quite the opposite… I see lots of state law giving preference to women. Tip toe carefully…. you may be before a Supreme Court that will set aside state preferences for women in contracting. Show me. where is the right you don’t have?
June 1, 2012 at 2:51 am #755419
JoBParticipantkootch..
as we speak..
republicans in congress are killing equal pay…
but you didn’t mean the kind of equal
that included equal opportunity and equal pay for equal work..
did you?
June 1, 2012 at 3:03 am #755420
JoBParticipantKootch
the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868
black men were given the right to vote in the 15th amendment in 1870
http://en.wikipedia.orgFifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
women in America win the right to vote 1920
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage
if women were really made equal in 1868
why did they have to wait until 1920 to vote?
could it be…
because women are subject to state laws
until the Equal Rights Amendment is actually ratified
which makes us legally equal under national law?
One has to wonder why a fine upstanding father of daughters wouldn’t want that for his kid.
June 1, 2012 at 3:15 am #755421
kootchmanMemberToday JoB….not a half century ago… or more. What equal protection do you not have today? Name one. You had to wait for sufferage until Republicans could pass it, Women you do know hold the majority vote in every state…? Of course you are subject to state law.. as we all are. Unless… state law contradicts the constitutional law that limits the power of the federal government. Enumerated powers… the foundation we are built on. we are not going socialist.
June 1, 2012 at 3:29 am #755422
kootchmanMemberYou do realize in your erroneous comment on inheritance, that the wealthiest US President we ever had, adjusted, was Geo Washington? And who inherited and owned the property of Mt. Vernon? The very wealthy, widow, by inheritence, Margaret Custis. Unless you are something different than “a person”… you have all the protections of the constitution. There are rights reserved by the states. So be it. But do get an attorney if you feel they are in conflict with the constitution.
June 1, 2012 at 3:37 am #755423
waterworldParticipantAfter reading the posts above, I don’t think I’d want any of you to represent me in a court of law.
The issue of whether the constitution already protects women from discriminatory state action is one that it still being debated. Neither JoB nor Kootch can legitimately claim that the law is settled one way or the other. One of the more compelling arguments in favor of the ERA is that it would give us a definitive answer. But some of the opposition to the amendment comes from women who prefer to take the position that constitution must be interpreted as protecting our rights to the same extent as those of men.
The argument that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the rights of women is certainly not universally accepted. Reed v Reed (a 1971 case) is commonly cited as authority for the proposition that the equal protection clause prohibits legislation that discriminates on the basis of sex. However the case did not elevate sex to the same level of scrutiny as race, religion, or national origin, and no subsequent case has, either. Laws that discriminate on the basis of race, religion or national origin are essentially presumed to violate the constitution, whereas in the case of sex discrimination, a law may stand if it is not arbitrary in its distinction. This comports with the historical view of the Fourteenth Amendment that it would not alter common law principles of coverture, which subjected married women to the control of their husbands. At the time the amendment was being considered, such prominent women as Susan B. Anthony fought against it because it very specifically recognizes voting rights for men only. Given the the only language in the fourteenth amendment that even touches on sex is a clause that recognizes a preference for men, it should come as no surprise that legal scholars do not agree that the other parts of the amendment apply to women.
The civil rights era gives us some additional evidence that women’s rights are not in enshrined in the constitution. What women gained in the feminist movement of the 60s and 70s, primarily, was a series of federal statutes that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. These laws include Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in employment practices on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, or national origin; and the Equal pay Act of 1963, which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from wage discrimination based on sex. (Starting at the same time, Congress also passed laws to prohibit discrimination based on age and disability, two additional areas where the equal protection clause provides no relief.)
Title VII goes where the equal protection clause does not – into the realm of private employment. Prior to Title VII, nothing protected women from sex discrimination in private employment. Even with Title VII and the Equal Pay Act, however, the protection is merely statutory. What Congress gives, it can take away. If Justice Scalia is correct in his analysis that the equal protection clause does not prevent state action that is discriminatory based on sex, then there is no legal bar to denying women the right to serve on juries, providing women in the military or government service fewer benefits than men, excluding women from state-supported schools or clubs – all of which have been done before. This is one reason why the women of JoB’s generation and my generation do not take the right to be free from sex discrimination for granted.
June 1, 2012 at 6:39 am #755424
kootchmanMemberIn a state that gives preference to women, for instance the state allowing non-competitive bids to accepted and set asides for women participation, I would argue, the reverse is true. In fact just such and investigation is on going, a “minority” set aside was accepted, and the set aside took the 10% bid advantage as pure profit, did none of the work, and gave a non set contractor the business. I believe the state contracting manager was fired… or as we say in government speak, so they can keep their benefits, resigned. Women enjoy preferences by state statutes. Neither the state or the federal government has any business sticking its nose into private contracts, i.e wages..if I can buy the services of one worker for less than another..next you will insist I buy my paint, concrete, tires, food, at the same prices, no matter where I shop… we already abide by minimum wages. There is that wold….. “substantially equal work”… what the hell does that mean? There are too many elements in employee compensation, including attitude, skill set transfer, willingness to work overtime etc… Let’s not Obamasize every aspect of governance, to pander to voter special interest groups. ERA is headed in that direction. This state does just fine by women, It’s not necessary. No I am not a lawyer..but I am a voting citizen and hell no, I will never support an ERA amendment. Talk to me when affirmative action is striken, set asides are gone, and all other racial, gender preferences are abolished. States can enact the laws that reflect the values of their citizens…. as they should be able to. Missouri does not want to live anything close to the way Washington does.
And still not one example… as requested.
June 1, 2012 at 6:47 am #755425
JanSParticipantwaterworld..welcome to the fold…looks like you’re wrong, too…how dare you know the real facts, and present them…others know better, dontcha know?
Thanks for the clarification, BTW
June 1, 2012 at 4:43 pm #755426
dobroParticipant“Ya can twist and torture facts long enough and they too will say anything.”- k’man (Scott Walker thread)
Why would you expect to have a rational discussion with a person whose attitude is such?
June 1, 2012 at 6:19 pm #755427
waterworldParticipantJanS: Thank you, and I hope you understand I’m joking around. It’s hard to take some of these discussions seriously.
What is missing from Kootch’s analysis is a sensible explanation for why women, in spite of all the affirmative action he derides, the set-aside programs in government contracting, and all the other preferential treatment he believes we receive, are still being paid only 75% (give or take a little) of what men are paid. It doesn’t matter whether you look at the labor force as a whole or at specific professions or trades, the numbers are about the same.
Look at the legal profession, for instance. One might expect that women who go into law would take advantage of their education, training, and any preferences available to them, and that over time, their compensation would rise to match that of men. The reality is quite different. By the 1980s, over 40% of law students were women; the number peaked at around 50% in the 90s, but it’s hovering around 43% now. By 2011, women made up over 45% of associates in law firms. Yet fewer than 20% of equity partners in law firms are women and women equity partners make only 86% of what men make. Every other meaningful measure of success reflects a similar imbalance: women are massively under-represented in surveys of managing partners, law school tenured professors, law school deans, and judges (federal, state and local). Firms that are, and always have been, dominated by men, set up compensation systems that are opaque and subjective, and as a result, women do not receive credit for business they bring to the firm and they receive less credit than men when bonuses are calculated. An independent analysis of data collected by the ABA and other organizations estimated that, at the current rate of change in the profession, it will take a women more than her lifetime to achieve equal compensation in the typical law firm.
That’s just one profession, but as I said, if there was ever a line of work where you would expect women to exercise their rights and demand equal treatment, it would be in the law. No one looking at the data has suggested that the differences in treatment and compensation are due to factors such as “attitude,” or “willingness to work overtime.” (On the whole, women lawyers work more overtime than their male colleagues.) Nor is it the result of client preferences — surveys of corporate clients of big law firms showed that the client often assumed a woman lawyer working on the matter was doing the work and getting the credit for it, when in reality, the law firm compensation committee was giving the credit to a man. The answer is more prosaic: compensation committees dominated by men tend to pay higher bonuses to men due to inherent bias and, more often than you would think, outright bullying and intimidation.
If the right to equal pay and the right to a workplace free from discrimination really existed, organizations like the American Bar Association would stop writing reports about the apparently unbreakable glass ceiling.
June 2, 2012 at 1:37 am #755428
JoBParticipantwaterworld..
you got me. busted me doing the short version again.
I don’t mind since you do it so well.
June 11, 2012 at 5:21 am #755429
HMC RichParticipantASUS certainly helped JoB’s point.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/asus-tweet-stirs-controversy.html
June 11, 2012 at 2:04 pm #755430
JoBParticipantHMCRich..
well… duh..
i was a booth babe in my younger sexier years…
i really don’t know why it took a tweet to point out that the use of booth babes or car babes or advertising babes is intentionally sexist
but if that’s what it takes to shoot the message home
i am all for it.
June 11, 2012 at 3:50 pm #755431
HMC RichParticipantTry to be nice and get slapped down. That’s gratitude for you ….babe.
June 11, 2012 at 3:53 pm #755432
HMC RichParticipantYou’ve come along way baby, now get me a beer darling. How about I whistle at you while you are walking down the street? You know I am just kidding. In case you don’t. Well, I am.
June 12, 2012 at 3:24 am #755433
JoBParticipantHMCRich..
i didn’t mean to slap you down
but you were pointing out the obvious
get your own d..n beer
but i will gladly treat you and junior to a scoop of full tilt one of these days
June 12, 2012 at 4:36 am #755434
redblackParticipantwow, rich. you certainly have a way with women.
with charm like that, it’s a wonder that you guys are able to reproduce. :)
June 12, 2012 at 6:30 am #755435
HMC RichParticipant -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.