Biden: "I am calling on Congress to act immediately to recognize the ratification of the ERA

[LetMyPeopleVote]

Link to tweet

[lagomorph777]

1. What's the exact score? States/House/Senate?

[Hugin]

4. I'm not sure what the number is 38?

However, VA (interestingly enough) was the final State needed and they voted to ratify a couple of years ago.

No action was taken because the GrOPpers claimed that some sort of statute of limitations on Constitutional Amendments had lapsed.

[lagomorph777]

5. That's like Justice Roberts saying that OSHA is invalid because it was passed 50 years ago.

[Hugin]

8. I welcome this call by President Biden as long overdue.

However, I think it is in response to WI's vote to call for a Constitutional Convention earlier this week.

I guess there's a double standard on the so-called statute of limitations and President Biden is saying, "Wait just one minute, there's already something pending in the queue."

[lagomorph777]

9. That makes sense.

[PoliticAverse]

11. No it's nothing like that. Please read up on the history of the ERA amendment and especially

the issue of a ratification deadline.

Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg agreed that the deadline for ratification had passed.

[In It to Win It]

20. Correct me if I'm wrong but I read some time ago (around the time Virginia voted to ratify)

Congress has the power to change the deadline.

I'm not sure how much of a majority would be needed to do that. I also clearly did not research the issue so this entire post can be taken with a healthy grain of salt.

[Polybius]

29. Before it's reached, yes

Not after the expiration date, otherwise it's pointless.

[former9thward]

23. He never said that.

Someone on the internet said he did but it was false.

[Angleae]

26. Not just them, it's in the text of the amendment.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

"ARTICLE —

"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

"Sec. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

"Sec. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."

[Polybius]

28. And for good reason

An expiration date was set of 1982. You can extend it before it's reached, but not after.

[niyad]

2. Thank you, President Biden.

[spanone]

3. K&R

[George II]

6. I wonder how many Americans, and DUers, remember the campaign for the ERA in the 1970s, or....

....even what it is.

[Hugin]

10. I do.

I remember my Mom taking me to ERA rallies years ago.

Glad to see it is still on some burner, somewhere.

[Captain Zero]

21. I went to one in Indiana inside the state house.

Even Republicans spoke in favor of ratifying it and I think Indiana ratified it. (??)
This was like 1976-78.

[Hugin]

22. That's around the time frame I remember.

It was a big deal, too. I never understood why it faded, but, a poster below said it had something to do with Henry Hyde.

[mopinko]

13. i do. i'm in il, and i hated henry hyde from that vote forward.

i dont remember atm what it was he pulled, but there was a sleazy maneuver iirc.

[Scrivener7]

7. Wow!

[LizBeth]

12. As a woman,, it sure would be nice to finally be included in the Constitution.

[PoliticAverse]

14. Women are, in the 19th amendment. n/t

[LizBeth]

15. That is only voting and voting is not everything in "ALL people are created equal".

[PoliticAverse]

16. The Constitution is remarkably gender neutral. You don't think electing a woman president...

would be unconstitutional without passage of the ERA do you? What passage of the ERA would do is prevent the passage of laws that specifically discriminated on the basis of sex (such as the current law requiring only men to register for the draft).

[LizBeth]

17. "Scalia Says Constitution Doesn't Protect Women From Gender Discrimination"

Again, as a woman, how about if I do not put my faith in men.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/scalia-says-constitution-doesn-t-protect-women-from-gender-discrimination/342789/

On edit: Geez, that old whine. Ya, it is the white man being picked on and discriminated against. I hear you.

[PoliticAverse]

18. Did you actually read what I wrote? I specifically pointed out...

that...

What passage of the ERA would do is prevent the passage of laws that specifically discriminated on the basis of sex

I favor passage of the ERA.

[LizBeth]

19. I felt you minimized womens righteous need to be a part of the Constitution.

Tossing the 19th amendment to me and mens woes of draft card with a draft that will never happen. Whether you support or not is your business.

[Imallin4Joe]

24. Wrecked. GO JOE!!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

25. Supporters of the ERA push for publication despite lingering legal questions

Link to tweet

Backers of the Equal Rights Amendment are pressuring the Biden administration and the US archivist to publish the amendment, arguing that the ERA should be taking effect on Thursday.

Believing that the ERA has satisfied all the necessary constitutional requirements, supporters are demanding that US Archivist David Ferriero, who's set to retire in April, publish the ERA as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution as part of his ministerial duties. Ferriero has not publicly indicated that he plans to publish the amendment, and the National Archives referred CNN to the Department of Justice for comment.

Two years ago Thursday, Virginia ratified the ERA, becoming the 38th state to do so and, in supporters' eyes, clinching the necessary benchmark for addition to the US Constitution nearly a half-century after the amendment began making its way through state legislatures. But the necessary threshold was not reached by a 1982 deadline and five of the states rescinded their support of the ERA, opening significant legal questions.

Supporters say the law is necessary to enshrine equal rights for women in the Constitution, though opponents argue many such protections are already in place across the nation and that publishing the ERA now would ignore prior federal court decisions.

[Angleae]

27. For the ERA to be, it would have to start from scratch. The original is dead.

[Polybius]

30. Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in early 2020 that the entire process needs to be restarted

Ruth Bader Ginsburg probably just dealt a fatal blow to the Equal Rights Amendment