[QUOTE=cheesehead;239925]The Supreme Court has ruled in the cases of other amendments that ratifications cannot be rescinded, so the ratifications in Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, South Dakota and Tennessee remain in effect.
[/QUOTE][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment[/url]

Apparently, it is a little more complicated than that. If wikipedia is to be believed, there was a ratification deadline on the ERA, which was not met. The supreme court ruled that the rescinding was moot because "the Amendment has failed of adoption no matter what the resolution of the legal issues presented here" due to the deadline. In other words, the ratifications were for an amendment with a deadline, which is now passed. So, while you might be right that the ratifications remain in effect (that issue was never decided formally), it can be argued that they may remain in effect only for the *original* amendment, with its *original* timeline--and hence are completely moot.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution[/url]

Apparently, the issue of extending the deadline was decided by a district court in the negative, but was vacated and then decided as moot. So, I'm not sure exactly what the legal standing is. I'm unsure if the vacated decision is the current precedent or not. (The supreme court could of course overrule this. But even if they did, it could be argued that the states only ratified the amendment with the original timeline, and the court might agree with that, or of course they might not.) More background is available at the wiki under "Rescinding a ratification"

Better dead than red
 

In the rest of the world (i.e.(sic) Europe), red denotes socialism and
blue denotes conservatism.

Similar to Aussies interpreting 0 for 2 as 2 for 0
through their upside down cricketing spectacles.

David

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;239942][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment[/URL]

Apparently, it is a little more complicated than that. If wikipedia is to be believed, there was a ratification deadline on the ERA, which was not met.[/QUOTE]An important distinction is between amendments which contained a ratification deadline within themselves, as part of the wording of the amendment, and those whose ratification deadlines (if any) were set forth in the legislation accompanying the amendment, but not in the wording of the amendment itself. The ERA is in the latter category, so its ratification deadline can be extended again by act of Congress, with no change to the ERA itself. If that were done, the existing 35 ratifications, including those of Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, South Dakota and Tennessee would still count.

Compare amendments 18 and 20-22, which do contain their own ratification deadlines, with 1-17, 19, and 23-27, which don't. The ERA is in the latter category.

[quote]The supreme court ruled that the rescinding was moot because "the Amendment has failed of adoption no matter what the resolution of the legal issues presented here" due to the deadline.[/quote]There, I think, you are quoting from Wikipedia about the ERA in particular. My previous reference was to court rulings in cases of other amendments. Furthermore, Congressional re-extension of the ERA deadline would un-moot the question about the ERA.

[quote]In other words, the ratifications were for an amendment with a deadline,[/quote]No, they were for an amendment [I]without[/I] a deadline. There was a deadline for enacting the ratifications, which was extended once and could be again, but what they ratified (the amendment) had no deadline itself.

[quote]So, while you might be right that the ratifications remain in effect (that issue was never decided formally), it can be argued that they may remain in effect only for the *original* amendment, with its *original* timeline--and hence are completely moot.[/quote]Not correct. The ERA which was ratified by 35 states _did not contain a deadline_. Only the accompanying legislation, which was passed by Congress _but never needed or received ratification by states_, had a deadline. Congress reset the deadline once; it can do so again. What was actually ratified had no deadline -- the 35 ratifications remain in effect.

Of course, if Congress never re-extends the deadline, the existing 35 ratifications will not be enough to cause the legal status of the amendment to change, so their remaining in effect has no immediate practical value until the extension happens. But that's quite a different matter from never having ratified, or having ratified something with a deadline.

[quote]But even if they did, it could be argued that the states only ratified the amendment with the original timeline,[/quote]No, it could not be so argued. Not one single state ever ratified the part of legislation containing a deadline -- they couldn't and didn't need to!

Also see [URL]http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/[/URL]

Regardless whether some Americans are dumb as rocks and how one would draw demarcations betweens polarized groupings an overriding fact is that someone that looks foreign or speaks a foreign language in the United States will undoubtedly receive some mistreatment at some point.

To say that the there are nice or good people that don't do this doesn't change the facts on the ground. I have some Asian friends who, upon driving through the midwest pulled over to investigate a loud sound. Someone had tied and lit a firecracker on their car. Another time I met a young Japanese man at LAX and had a halting conversation with him in Japanese and English about the music scene that he was visiting in Los Angeles. I stepped on a bus with him to tell the bus driver where he was getting off. Someone on the bus shouted out "English in America!"

Those are facts.

All of this is off the topic of offensive language and it doesn't seem worthwhile to carry more water up this hill. The political and economic climate is pernicious and it is taking its toll on hospitality. Hospitality is demonstrated in the ways we treat each other; how we act or react upon hearing each other speak, or in so many other ways. Offensive language is not really the problem. The problem is an overbearing lack of good will and the ease that people are taking offense.

[QUOTE=only_human;240021]Regardless whether some Americans are dumb as rocks and how one would draw demarcations betweens polarized groupings an overriding fact is that someone that looks foreign or speaks a foreign language in the United States will undoubtedly receive some mistreatment at some point.

To say that the there are nice or good people that don't do this doesn't change the facts on the ground. I have some Asian friends who, upon driving through the midwest pulled over to investigate a loud sound. Someone had tied and lit a firecracker on their car. Another time I met a young Japanese man at LAX and had a halting conversation with him in Japanese and English about the music scene that he was visiting in Los Angeles. I stepped on a bus with him to tell the bus driver where he was getting off. Someone on the bus shouted out "English in America!"

Those are facts.

All of this is off the topic of offensive language and it doesn't seem worthwhile to carry more water up this hill. The political and economic climate is pernicious and it is taking its toll on hospitality. Hospitality is demonstrated in the ways we treat each other; how we act or react upon hearing each other speak, or in so many other ways. Offensive language is not really the problem. The problem is an overbearing lack of good will and the ease that people are taking offense.[/QUOTE]
While it is indeed some way off the topic of offensive language, it's perhaps worth adding that what you describe about American society is rife in Europe too. And it seems (to me at least) to have worsened here in recent years in The Netherlands. Racist intolerance was probably never far below the surface anyway with a substantial minority of the population, but in around 2000 a new political party started to become popular: it used language which equated ordinary muslim citizens (and some other groups) with the lunatic and dangerous fringe of Islam, as if anyone with a non-Western origin was somehow a threat to Dutch values. Its popular leader Pim Fortuyn was murdered in 2002 in an appalling act of street violence, but his party continued for a while and was for a short time in government later that year. Since then a handful of other parties have sprung up which voice similarly racist and especially anti-muslim views, and one of these ("Partij voor de Vrijheid", or "Freedom Party") has in the last few years forced its way to the front of the political scene. In the national elections for parliament last June they took around 16% of the vote and this was enough to give them a big say in the policies of the new government which is now in office (they are not literally part of the government but took part in drawing up the agreement with the two coalition parties which have taken office and these two need the approval of the Freedom Party's parliament members to have a majority).

The rise of this movement and its political success have meant a shifting of the goal posts in Dutch society: racist and generally divisive attitudes which were previously unacceptable have suddenly become commonplace amongst a substantial minority of the public. What you describe, only_human, is just as rife here in Holland. And other European countries have similar movements which are causing (or reflecting, if you like) the same brutal downgrading of human values there.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;240167]Racist intolerance was probably never far below the surface anyway with a substantial minority of the population, but in around 2000 a new political party started to become popular: it used language which equated ordinary muslim citizens (and some other groups) with the lunatic and dangerous fringe of Islam
...
The rise of this movement and its political success have meant a shifting of the goal posts in Dutch society: racist and generally divisive attitudes which were previously unacceptable have suddenly become commonplace amongst a substantial minority of the public.[/QUOTE]
Islam is a religion, and muslims are followers of that religion. That doesn't have anything to do with race.

Whites can be muslims, and so can blacks, asians, and any other racial or ethnic group.

a small insignificant question ...
what color to be the water?


cmd-u

[QUOTE=Oddball;240900]Islam is a religion, and muslims are followers of that religion. That doesn't have anything to do with race.

Whites can be muslims, and so can blacks, asians, and any other racial or ethnic group.[/QUOTE]
You are pointing out one of the fallacies in the populist thinking that is rife. I am, needless to say, in complete agreement.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;240016]An important distinction is between amendments which contained a ratification deadline within themselves, as part of the wording of the amendment, and those whose ratification deadlines (if any) were set forth in the legislation accompanying the amendment, but not in the wording of the amendment itself. The ERA is in the latter category, so its ratification deadline can be extended again by act of Congress, with no change to the ERA itself.[/QUOTE]You are right that there is a difference.

However, remember that the district court ruled that such an extension was invalid. This was subsequently appealed to the supreme court, who (as I mentioned) ruled the point was moot. You are right that the ratification deadline could be extended, but you are ignoring the fact that (1) such an extension could be found invalid (again) by the courts, or (2) the courts might rule that the original ratifications were valid only for the original timeline, because they might view the preamble (which as you rightly point out is not a part of the amendment) was a significant part of the ratification process, and was understood by the states to be a part of the ratification process.

But this is all but moot as the ratification deadline most likely won't be extended, as such an extension would be viewed as trying to change the constitution against the will of the people.

Edited to add: you said: "Not one single state ever ratified the part of legislation containing a deadline..." I was under the impression (from reading the wiki articles) that this was incorrect. That a majority of the ratifications specifically mentioned the timeline. Was the wiki wrong on that point? Did the states NOT put their own timelines on their ratifications? [Note: This issue is different than unratification.]

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;240957]You are right that there is a difference.

However, remember that the district court ruled that such an extension was invalid.[/QUOTE]You're writing about the ERA, right?

[quote]This was subsequently appealed to the supreme court, who (as I mentioned) ruled the point was moot. You are right that the ratification deadline could be extended, but you are ignoring the fact[/quote]No, I'm not ignoring anything.

[quote]that (1) such an extension could be found invalid (again) by the courts,[/quote]... but an earlier extension [I]had[/I] been valid, so it'd be hard to go against that precedent.

[quote]or (2) the courts might rule that the original ratifications were valid only for the original timeline, because they might view the preamble (which as you rightly point out is not a part of the amendment)[/quote]"the preamble"? I've been referring to "the legislation accompanying the amendment". Is that what you mean?

[quote]But this is all but moot as the ratification deadline most likely won't be extended, as such an extension would be viewed as trying to change the constitution against the will of the people.[/quote]No, it wouldn't. Polls consistently showed then and show now that large majorities favor an equal-rights amendment, even if anti-ERA propaganda has managed to twist the meaning of the exact wording of the ERA in some minds.

[quote]Edited to add: you said: "Not one single state ever ratified the part of legislation containing a deadline..." I was under the impression (from reading the wiki articles) that this was incorrect. That a majority of the ratifications specifically mentioned the timeline. Was the wiki wrong on that point?[/quote]Your interpretation of the wiki article seems incorrect. The passage "... of the 35 legislatures that passed ratification resolutions, 24 explicitly referred to the 1979 deadline" does not say that what was ratified had a deadline. Was there something else?

[quote]Did the states NOT put their own timelines on their ratifications? [Note: This issue is different than unratification.][/quote]States' own time/deadlines wouldn't have overridden the congressionally-set deadline.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;240167]Since then a handful of other parties have sprung up which voice similarly racist and especially anti-muslim views, and one of these ("Partij voor de Vrijheid", or "Freedom Party") has in the last few years forced its way to the front of the political scene. In the national elections for parliament last June they took around 16% of the vote and this was enough to give them a big say in the policies of the new government which is now in office (they are not literally part of the government but took part in drawing up the agreement with the two coalition parties which have taken office and these two need the approval of the Freedom Party's parliament members to have a majority).[/QUOTE]"forced its way to the front of the political scene?" Forced? Really?

Wilders is often quoted as saying he has a problem with Islam, not Muslims per se.

I'm north of you, in Sweden. The anti-immigration party, Sweden Democrats, took about 6% of the recent vote and won 20 parliamentary seats.

I know Germans who tell me that "they like their coffee brown".

It is going to hit the fan in Europe, maybe in my lifetime.

As to the original topic of this thread "What is offensive language?" the answer is "anything that offends my mother."