Introduction
The article “Does the U.S. Constitution need an equal rights amendment?”, Which was published in The Journal of Legal Studies in 2006, is devoted to the discussion of the problem of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) ratification in the U.S. Constitution.
The authors of the article touched upon the legal issue, which divided the opinion of American legal experts on the ERA ratification at the federal level. The article is aimed at the law-makers, practitioners as well as students majoring in Law.
Article Summary
The main body of the article is logically divided into four parts. In the first part of the article, the authors present the history of the debates on the topic, highlighting the main ideas expressed in favor and against of the ERA ratification in the U.S. Constitution.
The two opposing sides can be determined: the one side expressing the idea that the ERA ratification in the U.S. Constitution will directly influence the actions of the court and rulings on sex discrimination cases and another one point that it will cause the indirect impact which will, firstly, result in the courts applying the higher standard of law and, secondly, will lead to the decisions favoring litigants alleging discrimination (Baldez et al., 2006).
Besides, the authors indicate that the problem of federal ERA implementation is critiqued by many for its irrelevance because this kind of problem is solved by the social changes.
The second part of the article deals with data and research methods. The authors used the empirical method to analyze the problem. In particular, they developed the model describing the impact of ERA ratification in the U.S. Constitution. In the frameworks of the model, the sex-discrimination cases were used as unit inputs, while the variables included the following: “the presence or absence of ERA; the standards court use to adjudicate sex discrimination claims; case outcomes” (Baldez et al., 2006, p. 254).
The third and the fourth parts of the article touch upon the results obtained from the model. The former explains that no direct influence of ERA has been observed and the later tells about the presence of the indirect effect. Also, the implications of the findings are discussed in the fourth part of the article. The authors sum up the findings as follows,
“…just as so many judicial specialists have suggested, we cannot and should not count on rules and principles of law to do all the work in explaining the choices judges make; comprehensive accounts require consideration of a range of forces” (Baldez et al., 2006, p. 273).
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article
The article “Does the U.S. Constitution need an equal rights amendment?” represents a valuable material for studying by law practitioners and students. The article has its strengths and weaknesses.
Although we can state that it encompasses profound research on the issue of ERA ratification at the federal level and can assist in the understanding of the essence of the problem, the audience should be ready to encounter the difficulties in the interpretation of the terminology included in the article. The knowledge of the specific terms definitions is required for the in-depth understanding of the article.
Besides, it is advised to review the history of ERA because the authors described it only briefly concentrating more attention on the ideas expressed in the debates. However, it should be said that the article presents an interesting topic of study in Law. The authors focused their efforts on the urgent problem in the legal practice and the court’s activity in the United States. Undoubtedly, the empirical results of their model give a basis for further research.
Conclusion
In my opinion, in spite of the fact that the article is difficult for understanding, it represents an interesting field for studying the law. It motivated me to seek additional information on the issue and to get a broader vision of the problem.
Reference
Baldez, L., Epstein, L., & Martin, A. D. (2006). Does the U.S. Constitution need an equal rights amendment? The Journal of Legal Studies, 35(1), 243-283.