October 21, 2017

:

Looking for PR & Finance Directors -

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Elections 2016-2017 -

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Why the ERA Failed: Comfort Over Content in the Fight for Women’s Rights -

Thursday, May 5, 2016

The Extent to Which Parents Should Regulate Their Children’s Abortions -

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Human Rights in a Reclusive Context: North Korea -

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Separation without Justification: Parental Rights of Pregnant Juveniles in Correctional Facilities -

Thursday, May 5, 2016

U.S. Asylum after September 11: Failures of the PATRIOT and ID Acts -

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Genomicare: The Affordable Care Act of 2023 -

Thursday, May 5, 2016

“Social Worker with a Gun:” The Role of Policing in Harm Reduction Among Addicts -

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Pulling Principles Out of Thick Air: The Incorporation of Customary International Law Under the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789 After Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain -

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Schuette v. BAMN: Moving Toward a Colorblind Constitution -

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

American Women in Combat: What Israel and Canada Can Teach the United States About Integration -

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Now Accepting Submissions! -

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Join WULR! -

Monday, April 25, 2016

The Intersection of Lawlessness and Justice: Police Misconduct -

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

A Recommendation for Eliminating Lifetime Tenure for Federal Judges -

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Admissions Panel A Great Success! -

Sunday, November 9, 2014

Law School Admissions Panel -

Monday, November 3, 2014

VICTORY OF THE MINORITY: The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Fight for Constitutional Rights -

Monday, June 30, 2014

VACATING CONVICTIONS: The Efficacy of One Form of Relief from the Consequences of Conviction -

Monday, June 30, 2014

Announcements

Article submissions are now open for the Journal! Deadline: December 19!

Why the ERA Failed: Comfort Over Content in the Fight for Women’s Rights

Author: Cameron Smith, Stanford University. Published in Volume VIII Issue II.

 

In the late 1970s, after an arduous journey of more than half a century, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was on the verge of becoming an amendment to the United States Constitution. The ERA had been approved in both houses of Congress—by far more than the requisite two-thirds vote—and it needed ratification from only three more states in order to satisfy the constitutional requirement. Yet, the ERA never managed to fulfill the ratification requirement. Given its overwhelming support in Congress, the ERA’s failure was largely unexpected, and remains somewhat of a mystery to scholars. Historians only agree on part of the explanation for the ERA’s failure; they understand that the ERA failed because of the conflicting views of familial feminists and individualist feminists. However, historians have yet to adequately explain how these opposing views actually reduced to opposing views about women’s rights, which after all, ought to have been the focus of the discourse over the Equal Rights Amendment. This paper suggests a way to resolve the lingering mystery of why the ERA failed. It asserts that the conflict between familial feminists and individualist feminists was, in fact, not over the content of women’s rights, but over the value of those rights.

Leave A Comment