NYS Constitutional Convention: A Man's Right to Beat his Wife or A Woman's Right not to be Beaten

In "the good old days," European men could legally beat their wives.

In the "good old days" in America, as ordered by the Constitution, women were properties, had to obey their husbands, could not own properties, and all scientific discoveries they made had to be credited to a man.

 

As time progressed, many men bemoaned the loss of the "good old days" when rules or some "troublemakers (constitutional amendment)" came and “messed things up.” For example, the European introduced the Rule of Thumb, wherein the man could no longer beat his wife with a 2 by 4. He had to use a stick no thicker than his thumb for him to legally beat her. Then came some "hysterical" American women (Stanton, Hutchinson, Paul, et al) demanding the right to vote and to own properties. They prevailed/won and the laws were changed to make their demands possible. 

 

Later, the American women had the nerves to demand equal rights as men. "How dare they demand equal pay?" They sought to use the Constitution to get their way.

 

"The Equal Rights Amendment was passed by Congress on March 22, 1972 and sent to the states for ratification. In order to be added to the Constitution, it needed approval by legislatures in three-fourths (38) of the 50 states. By 1977, the legislatures of 35 states had approved the amendment. In 1978, Congress voted to extend the original March 1979 deadline to June 30, 1982.  However, no additional states voted yes before that date, and the ERA fell three states short of ratification." 

Men won as the majority of states did not change the Constitution. In part, men were helped by a woman named Schlafly who voted NO.

THAT WAS 40 YEARS AGO.

 

In NY, there is an initiative on the ballot to determine if the state's constitution is to be amended.  Such initiative must occur every 20 years. The last constitutional convention was 50 years ago, but no change was made. The last time change was made to the state's constitution was nearly 80 years ago. Times, things, and population have changed drastically since that time.

 

Many powerful unions are voting NO to amendment (whose interest are they protecting?). Some groups are voting YES to shore up the constitution given the occupant of the White House.

 

Given what I wrote earlier, do you want a NYS constitution like the laws of the Medes and Persian (that changeth not) and last determined by people long dead to determine your future?

Comments

Nasty Added Nov 1, 2017 - 7:16am
 
DOC.
Women have controlled men with sex, ever since Eve got Adam to eat her apple!
Men went to war, and women stayed home to inherit the estate.
Women now control men with charges of sex abuse and rape. Look how many powerful men have been destroyed by a charge that "He grabbed my Ass."
The whole society is being turned on its head, and history is being erased, or reversed.
The only thing left to preserve society, is State and Federal Constitutions. Once they are re written, what used to be the USA, and the Society it spawned will be GONE!
I hope you and your ilk, are as wise as the founders.
Dr. Rupert Green Added Nov 1, 2017 - 8:55am
Nasty, your nasty predisposition is well deserved. Many men wish they have the stones to state what you did. Than God for President Trump, many men are finding that men are supposed to have balls. Still, I did not state a yes or no on the proposition. Therefore, wherefrom did you get the temerity to ascribe me a lackey and todey?
Dino Manalis Added Nov 1, 2017 - 9:24am
We've come a long way, but that's why we shouldn't rush backward cultures that continue to abuse women.  Like us, they need economic; political; and eventually social progress to change and improve people's lives.
opher goodwin Added Nov 1, 2017 - 10:02am
Equality is always well fought for and hard to get - whether that is race, nationality, gender or religion. People are nasty and tribal.
Mike Haluska Added Nov 1, 2017 - 2:06pm
Dr. Green - will you ever let go of the past?  Will you ever stop accusing people living in the 21st Century of crimes committed in the 19th Century?
Dr. Rupert Green Added Nov 1, 2017 - 2:24pm
@Mike. "will you ever let go of the past?  Will you ever stop accusing people living in the 21st Century of crimes committed in the 19th Century?" 
 
Talk about rushing to a conclusion before reading the argument. My post is about the future.
Indeed, the past informs the present and the present mediates the future. People need to critically read what I am saying before they can effectively respond. Not all snakes with the distinct red, black, or yellow color bands are venomous.  Similarly, your adverse predisposition to a person can have you acting foolishly.
 
Lynn Johnson Added Nov 1, 2017 - 3:11pm
This is an interesting and diverse post.  Diverse in that it is generously sprinkled with a few facts, a bit of bias, and a few falsities.
 
>> In "the good old days," European men could legally beat their wives. 
 
Good start.  That is pretty well true of Europe and for most societies and culture long, long ago.  For some (cough, cough Islam, cough) it is still very much true today... yet conveniently ignored by those who bemoan equal rights for women.
 
>> In the "good old days" in America, as ordered by the Constitution, women were properties, had to obey their husbands, could not own properties, and all scientific discoveries they made had to be credited to a man.
 
Whether or not these things were indeed the case, exactly what clause in the U.S. Constitution "ordered" any of these things?
 
A few items within the list may have been true, but none are today.  How is this possible if the Constitution (that ordered them) was not amended?
 
It's also interesting that most of your examples of injustice (speaking for Western culture alone) are well over a century old.  (Mike has a valid point.)  No one today was alive when any of these things were remotely true. 
 
You use this list as "examples" and then say your post is "about the future".  If you look at your post "critically"; exactly three sentences are about the future (the last three).  The rest (90+%) is all about the past; much of it over a century in the past.
 
>> As time progressed, many men bemoaned the loss of the "good old days" when rules or some " troublemakers (constitutional amendment)" came and “messed things up.”
 
What men, and what amendments?
 
>> For example, the European introduced the Rule of Thumb, wherein the man could no longer beat his wife with a 2 by 4. He had to use a stick no thicker than his thumb for him to legally beat her.
 
Really?  Was this "rule" by law or custom?
 
Let me answer that.  At most it was custom, and not even that.  Mostly, it's an old "wives' tale".  (see Rule of Thumb - Reference to Spousal Abuse)
 
If this is your example, it does not bode well for the point it is supposed to offer proof for.
 
>> ... Equal Rights Amendment... men won... because of (Phillis) Schlafly
 
I agree that Phillis Schlafly was instrumental in defeating the ERA.  Good for her.  It needed defeating.
 
There were a few valid minor arguments for the ERA forty years ago though most were erroneous then and even more so today.  The few valid issues were addressed either by law or a change in culture; most decades ago.  An amendment was never needed.
 
The ERA would stand even less chance of passing today given the environment we find ourselves in.  %^$#!  We can't even distinguish between a woman, deviant or a eunuch anymore.
 
>> (New York is about to possibly have a constitutional amendment process)... Given what I wrote earlier, do you want a NYS constitution (left alone as it is) and last determined by people long dead to determine your future?
 
Answer (New York): It's New York's business.  I want the people of New York to decide.  Given how screwed up New York is (from Texas standards :) ) what are the chances things will get any better anyway?  So, amend away... what do you have to lose?
 
Not a New Yorker (by the grace of God :) ), I can better answer for the Texas and National Constitutions...
 
Answer (National): If the long dead authors were wise in the framework, then leave it alone.  If they were not, then amend it.  Our founding fathers were wise.  One of the ways in which they were wise was to require amendments reach a super majority.  Good for them (and us).
 
Answer (Texas): Texas has a weak constitution... amended as easily as dispensing pez (candy).  We do it on a yearly if not bi-annual basis... so it doesn't mean very much.  Alas, we are not perfect.
 
Dr. Rupert Green Added Nov 1, 2017 - 3:49pm
"Like us, they need economic; political; and eventually social progress to change and improve people's lives."
 
On point Dino, but as Nasty revealed, some disagree with you.
Dr. Rupert Green Added Nov 1, 2017 - 3:53pm
@Opher. "Equality is always well fought for and hard to get - whether that is race, nationality, gender or religion. People are nasty and tribal."
Nasty has a mind of his own. Clearly, people who are benefitting from the current NY constitution have no interest in upsetting it. The fight is for those people who are being disenfranchised. Here the battle is not being fought with swords and muskets, it is being fought with weaponized words to mobilize bias for or against.
Dr. Rupert Green Added Nov 1, 2017 - 4:01pm
Thanks, Lyn. There is a saying that it is folly to be wise where ignorance is bliss. The audience for this post is Facebookers. Your points are appropriate, but irrelevant to lower level feeding/reading actors.  The gist of my post was to inform readers to vote on the constitutional amendment. I was at pain to try to have them think. As you might be aware, certain groups have been so dumbed down by social media, instead of seeking shelter, they will stop to "like" an approaching death delivering hurricane. 
opher goodwin Added Nov 1, 2017 - 4:08pm
Dr Green - that is true. The lines are being drawn and propaganda trotted out.
Donna Added Nov 1, 2017 - 4:29pm
I live in NY, and have my whole life.
I choose to vote NO. 
Dr. Rupert Green Added Nov 1, 2017 - 4:43pm
@Lynn. I could write for higher thinking folks; thus: 
"After the American Civil War, profound legal challenges faced the newly-reunited nation. One of those was how to define a citizen so that former slaves, and other African Americans, were included. One response was the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified July 28, 1868.
 
Why was the Fourteenth Amendment controversial in women's rights circles? Because, for the first time, the proposed Amendment added the word "male" into the US Constitution. Section 2, which dealt explicitly with voting rights, used the term "male." While the second article of the Fourteenth Amendment to the target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect">US Constitution specified certain voting-rights connected with males only, women's rights advocates decided that the first article could be used instead to support the full citizenship rights of women.
 
In 1971, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect">Reed v. Reed. The court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment did prohibit such unequal treatment on the basis of sex (gender) -- the first US Supreme Court decision to apply the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause to gender or sexual distinctions. Women gained the right to vote in 1920 via the 19th Amendment. Yes, 50 + years to attain, but almost 100 since inception.
 
Worthy of noting, from both political ideological extremes, once a Congress convenes a convention (not sure if Federal protocols are the same as NY State but should be more alike than different?), it cannot be undone and no predetermined rules or limitations, adopted by either Congress or the states, will have any bearing on what the convention delegates may choose to do or propose. As the representatives of the sovereign will of the people-at-large in each state, convention delegates would have free latitude to propose any changes they see fit, including the writing of an entirely new constitution, along with changes to the mode of ratification, so as to guarantee the adoption of their amendments. This scenario is known as a “runaway” convention, and it is not without historical precedent.
 
Changes in government are constant. You are immersed in one of those opportunity for change. However, the effort doesn’t involve altering the legal foundation. The “will of the people” is demonstrated every 2-4 years. Alterations (or lack of them) to any constitution aren’t like changing the distance of an extra point in a football game. Each and every one has deep and serious repercussions and the 14th Amendment is an example of that...and that is only an amendment, not a Constitutional change. Times do change: women now run corporations and for the Presidency, sit on the same Supreme Court that previously denied them voting rights, are doctors, legal scholars, and hold primary positions within the government structure that they previously had no say in determining.
 
Just because something is “old” or conceived by those long passed, doesn’t make it obsolete. It might be time to convene a constitutional convention at the State level but VERY careful thought should be given to what degree of extremism will undoubtedly see this as an opportunity to alter the foundation rather than addressing concerns that are already being met by societal practice and available recourse."
 
 
Given the existing legal framework and social practices, how many resources are to be extended to gain “What” from a revision of the State Constitution and “How” will this positively affect the overall governed body? To date, and with what can be seen as an often begrudgingly slow process, Amendments have reflected changes in US society that, if profound enough to be supported by the will of the people, have “amended” the core document to reflect the changing times, attitudes, and practices.
Dr. Rupert Green Added Nov 1, 2017 - 4:47pm
@Donna. Being the dog you are and the cat I am, has the the constitution been working toward the best interest of both of us? If not, would our vote not differ? 
Nasty Added Nov 1, 2017 - 6:42pm
The main point of the ERA, was reproductive rights! When Roe V. Wade became the law of the land, the ERA was fruitless, as women were SUPERIOR to men, in most other considerations, divorce custody, EEOC, sexual abuse allegations, spousal abuse.
 
If Right to Life Republicans and a conservative Supreme court overturn Wade, The ERA will be revitalized, and passed overwhelmingly. A woman is more than an incubator.
Nasty Added Nov 1, 2017 - 6:56pm
Society is reaching the point, where Children no longer have mothers! They have professional care givers! At best, they get a multi tasking guardian for a few tired hours before bed.
Not having a nurturing parent or two, they turn to their electronic companion who tells them how great they are.
 
This makes it easy to watch the slaughter of innocents on TV, while eating processed food.
 
We now talk of Nuclear war, as a real possibility, and many want to protect SICK ideologies that deal in death, torture and slavery as a tribute to God.
 
The future can ONLY end in a BLOOD BATH!
Nasty Added Nov 1, 2017 - 7:00pm
OFF TOPIC I know. But I had to let out my frustration with what I see today and the addiction to change.
MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Dr. Rupert Green Added Nov 1, 2017 - 11:31pm
Nasty, you can be yourself and let loose your frustration on my posts. I am a good listener and facilitator. There you go being not yourself and, thus, advancing Christmas by two months. The shit hitting us is complex and unrelenting. It can be maddening if you take it seriously and make it hits you. Be like us Jamaicans, shit is "no problem."
Digress Added Nov 2, 2017 - 3:06am
 
Dr. Green. With all the angst in the world, a little early Christmas cheer is welcome. Can we hope for peace on earth and Goodwill towards men? Seems like light years away. I don't blame Nasty for wanting to hurry it along.
Dr. Rupert Green Added Nov 2, 2017 - 7:39am
Indeed Nasty and Digress' digression are welcomed to ease some of the world's angsts. Sadly, the co-opting of Christmas by big businesses creates angst in parents who cannot afford the $200 sneakers or the $800 me phones demand by children. What is a poor bloke with 7 children in today's society to do?
 
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 2, 2017 - 8:37am
I don't know the details of the NY constitution, but Philis Schlafly was right. There were stupid implications such an amendment would have and it would achieve nothing in the real world.
Digress Added Nov 2, 2017 - 1:53pm
 
Dr. Green. I read your comment with sadness, as that is the problem! Children who expect everything to be given to them, shielded from the reality of life, and parents who think they must spoil a child to get love.
 
If all you can give your child is love and warmth, and a desire to do better, then you have given him the world!