Two years ago, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify 1972's Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
That's enough to add it to the document. But there are plenty of reasons why it hasn't been. For one thing, the deadline for ratification is long past. And some states have rescinded their ratification, though it's not clear if they can legally do so.
In any case the ERA isn't an amendment yet. It ay or may not ever be. The bigger question is, in this day and age, is it needed?
What's in the ERA?
"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.
"Sec. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
"Sec. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."
That's it. But the ERA has been controversial since day one and remains so.
We want to know what you think. Is the Equal Rights Amendment still needed? Or is there no need for the ERA today?
Send your response (50 words maximum) to [email protected] by Wednesday, March 2. You can also mail your response to the Texarkana Gazette Friday Poll, at P.O. Box 621, Texarkana, TX 75504 or drop it off at our office, 101 E. Broad St, Texarkana, Ark. Be sure to include your name, address and phone number. We will print as many responses as we can in next Friday's paper.
Last Week: Trading Ban?
Last week's question was about proposals to keep elected officials and possibly their spouses from trading individual stocks. Should senators and representatives be banned from trading individual stocks? Should their spouses fall under the ban as well? Should they be required to sell their stocks when they assume office?
From facebook.com/texarkanagazette
- That's why big pharma's stock prices are dropping.
- Yes.
- Should they though? Oh you mean now that all the old political cronies have made their wealth let's not do that anymore. brilliant idea.
- The issue with the current setup is that since they do invest in many regulated markets, it's basically the same as market manipulation. There have been many spouses (some currently) on these boards that get privileged knowledge and make trades, which is insider trading essentially. I see nothing wrong with bills like this being brought up.
- Of course they should either be required to sell or put them in a blind trust. Congresspeople and spouses.
- Three questions. Answers: Yes, yes and yes.
- DC needs to be free from lobbyist and people in Congress from making money by passing bill or making money on Wall Street. Nobody -- father, mother or sons, daughters -- should be trading stocks. It's pretty simple, insider information can lead dishonest behavior. This bill should been passed in the 70s.