Posted on 03/23/2022 6:42:34 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
On this day 50 years ago, Congress approved the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Within one year, 30 states had ratified it, fueling hopes that the ERA would soon become the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But a half-century later, the ERA is mired in legal uncertainty. The Supreme Court of the United States could ultimately strike it down as unconstitutional.
The ERA is short but important. It declares that "equality of rights under law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." The ERA would give Congress the power to defend and promote sex equality, for instance, by fighting intrusive abortion restrictions, closing the gender pay gap and punishing unjust sex-based discrimination by federal, state and local government actors.
It is no easy feat to amend the Constitution. It is so hard that it has occurred only 27 times in 235 years. America's amendment labyrinth requires approval from two-thirds of both houses of Congress, followed by ratification by three-quarters of the states. That means 38 states.....
A second set of questions concerns whether a state can revoke its earlier ratification. In the years since the ERA was proposed in 1972, a handful of states have revoked their prior ratification of the amendment. If these states can legally rescind their prior ratification, fewer than 38 states have validly ratified the ERA. The question for the Court, then, will be whether a state may ratify an amendment and then revoke that ratification before the amendment becomes official. The Constitution is silent on this point, too.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Such equality is impossible to simultaneously have for every demographic category unless all people for all jobs get identical salaries.
Dear MSN, ERA is dead. Really, truly, legally D.E.A.D. Stop trying to summon it forth.
“The question for the Court, then, will be whether a state may ratify an amendment and then revoke that ratification before the amendment becomes official. The Constitution is silent on this point, too.”
Thus, the Constitution does not prohibit states from revoking an approval of an amendment before the amendment is able to take force by achieving all the votes an amendment is required to obtain. For it to be unconstitutional the constitution would have to prohibit it, which it doesn’t.
The judge who issued the ruling was none other than Obama appointee Rudy Contreras.
-PJ
The era expired decades ago.🙄
They’re of the opinion that it’s only “mostly dead”.🙄
The court would have to look at the 1982 extension and note that the ratification did not take place in 1982. Thus they could not accept the amendment as valid unless all the other states are given the right to re-ratify their votes since conditions have changed SINCE 1982.
The congress could vote to extend the 1982 deadline by 2/3rds vote.
The amendment is dead. The congress could try to deem it as having passed but the Supreme court is under no obligation to recognize it as valid. The ERA would have to be sent out to the states again...this time without time limits for ratification.
Yep. As I recall, it was appealed, but the appeal was dismissed as moot when the second extension passed and it still had not been ratified.
As part of the mode of ratification, Congress may by a two-thirds vote of both Houses set a reasonable time limit for the states to act in order for the ratification to be effective. When this time is set, it is binding on Congress and the states and it cannot be changed by Congress thereafter.
Accordingly, the Court declares that Idaho's rescission of its ratification of the twenty-seventh amendment effectively nullified its prior ratification and Idaho may not be counted as a ratifying state. The same is true for any other state which has properly certified its action of rescission to the Administrator of the General Services.
The Court further declares that the majority action of Congress in attempting to extend the period for ratification of the twenty-seventh amendment is void and of no effect.
Compared to Rap “music”, I’ll take Disco anyday.
Changing the ratification deadline would be nullifying the NO votes for the states that intended to vote no by the deadline.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.