@RyanWokeFather With respect to the Equal Rights Amendment, I am okay with either the Lucretia Mott Equal Rights Amendment formulation or the Alice Paul Equal Rights Amendment formulation (both actually written by Alice Paul) so long as the Hayden rider is excluded.
@RyanWokeFather The Lucretia Mott Equal Rights Amendment formulation reads: "[m]en and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction" (history.hanover.edu/courses/excerp…).
@RyanWokeFather The Alice Paul Equal Rights Amendment formulation reads: "[e]quality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex" (history.hanover.edu/courses/excerp…).
@RyanWokeFather At the moment, I don't really care if a provision is added regarding "Congress … hav[ing] the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of…" the Equal Rights Amendment. In my experience, that seems to be of little consequence. I know others do not agree.
@RyanWokeFather The one provision I'll object to is the Hayden rider, which reads: "[t]he provisions of this [Equal Rights Amendment] shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits, or exemptions now or hereafter conferred by law upon persons of the female sex" (jofreeman.com/lawandpolicy/e…).
@RyanWokeFather The Hayden rider paints women as a privileged class and attempts to maintain those privileges in addition to any expansion of rights the Equal Rights Amendment might trigger.
Interestingly, even Alice Paul objected to the Hayden rider (content.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt6…).
Interestingly, even Alice Paul objected to the Hayden rider (content.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt6…).
@RyanWokeFather @threadreaderapp, please unroll.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
