Any discerning shopper knows that you can't judge a product's quality based on its name or manufacturer's advertising. They are just superficial appeals designed to seduce. Instead, you should look at the ingredient label. The same goes for government laws and proposals, with New York State's Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) being a good example. I think it would be great to see it listed as “Proposition 1” on the ballot this Election Day. Who is against “equal rights”? But the ingredients are listed on the label.
And watchdog groups warn that they are harmful.
Moreover, supporters of the ERA are guilty of a form of false advertising. That means some of the most damaging amendments won't even be mentioned in the ballot language at the polling place. They have good reason to hide it too.
These provisions reportedly make discrimination for the purpose of preventing discrimination a constitutional right in New York State. For example, according to the Equal Protection Project (EPP), white employees who are denied promotions in order to achieve “diversity” in the workplace will no longer be able to sue in court (in state court, anyway).
cunning
Despite this, the NY ERA has received precious little media coverage. But William A. Jacobson, a law professor at Cornell University and founder of the EPP, says: The group's operations and editorial director, Kemberly Kaye, warned about this earlier this week. They wrote in the New York Post, calling Prop One a “wolf in sheep's clothing”:
The ERA is being promoted as a way to protect abortion rights, which are not under any threat in the Empire State, but in reality, it is a bona fide leftist ideological usurpation.
If adopted, Prop. 1 would continue to build on reverse racism, critical race theory, and the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion without most voters recognizing its far-reaching implications. It would embed species retribution into the state constitution.
Our civil rights nonprofit, the Equal Protection Project, has been sounding the alarm about the ERA's stealth provisions since April, when we announced our opposition to the amendment after a detailed analysis of its text and legal implications. .
The ERA consists of two separate provisions that amend Article 1, Section 11 of the New York State Constitution.
Part A adds terms such as “gender identity” and “gender expression” to existing protected statuses. This used to be easily understood and long-recognized categories such as race, color, creed, and religion.
This has raised concerns from women's rights activists, parents' groups and others, and led to organized protests over potential violations of parental rights, the destruction of spaces for girls and women, and the decline in girls' sports. caused it.
Some critics even see the voting system as a potential backdoor that would allow non-citizens and immigrants to vote.
it's not child's play
Of course, amending the constitution is a difficult task. If an ordinary law is enacted that mandates an anomaly, a judge can strike it down if it is unconstitutional. But if the same extraordinary event were mandated by an amendment, it would be constitutional by definition. In that case, the court loses its power to provide relief.
EPP therefore said Part B, the “hidden” section of the ERA, was even worse than Part A, and EPP presented the two parts in a detailed April analysis. (EPP used capital letters to indicate changes from previous legislation and bold for emphasis.)
11. A. No person shall be denied equal protection under the laws of this state or its sub-statutes. No person shall be deemed to have any knowledge of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, creed (or), religion, or gender (sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, reproductive health and to be discriminated against with respect to civil rights by any other person, business, corporation, agency, or state, state agency, or local government, under any law, on grounds of civil rights (including autonomy);
B. Nothing in this section shall invalidate or prevent the adoption of any law, regulation, program, or practice designed to prevent or eliminate discrimination based on the characteristics enumerated in this section; None of the features listed are prohibited. shall be construed to interfere with, limit, or deny the civil rights of any person based on any other characteristics identified in this section.
Amazing results?
The EPP later explained the meaning of the above, writing:
Under Paragraph B, discrimination is a constitutional right in New York state only if the discrimination is “for the purpose of preventing or eliminating discrimination.” This embeds what is commonly referred to as “reverse discrimination” into the New York State Constitution. Discrimination against one group to protect another group would be excluded from the comprehensive protections of the current Constitution and Amendment A. Presumably, this would mean that simply claiming the motive was “anti-discrimination” would pre-empt New York State and New York City human rights laws.
We've all heard this before. For example, consider the “advice” offered by racing hustler Ibram X. Kendi (real name Ibram Henry Rogers). “The only remedy for past discrimination is present discrimination,” he wrote in his book. “The only remedy for present discrimination is future discrimination.'' He is apparently justifying woke discrimination in perpetuity. And that's exactly what New York's Prop One is trying to accomplish.
So if you're white or Asian American and have been denied a job because of your race, you're in luck. That might be constitutional. Of course, the ERA would likely create a conflict with federal law. And we'll have to wait to see how it unfolds.
Speaking of law, one of the organizations supporting Prop One is the New York State Bar Association. Why not? It seems like it will generate endless new lawsuits and countless more dollars in trial lawyers' coffers. While people gain wealth, they can become rich.
But New Yorkers don't need to be stifled by the ERA. That is, unless they prove in November that it truly reflects the government they deserve.
