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

Vox ^ | February 11, 2020 | Ian Millhiser

[fwdude]

At an event at Georgetown University’s law school, moderator and federal appellate judge Margaret McKeown asked Ginsburg about an ongoing effort to revive the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which provides that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

Three-fourths of the states, or 38 total, are required to amend the Constitution. Last month, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the ERA and one of only three states to do so since 1977 — but there’s a catch. Congress imposed a 1982 deadline on states hoping to ratify the ERA, though there’s doubt about whether this deadline is binding.

Ginsburg’s comments on Monday suggest that she believes this 1982 deadline should be considered binding.

[fwdude]

I’m torn between believing this is a stopped-clock moment for her, or she is really that mentally confused, since she never lets constitutional precepts stand in her way before. Nevertheless, leftist tears are flowing over this.

[Responsibility2nd]

Are we all agreed? Democrats AND Republicans?

RBG should step down.

[goldstategop]

Congress would have to pass a new ERA. Isn’t going to happen.

[fwdude]

Congress would have to pass a new ERA.

Absolutely. If they really want it, they have to start at square one.

And that’s the contention that Ginsburg made in her speech, expressing that that is what she would want. Another recuseable moment in case it goes to the Supreme Court?

[Dilbert San Diego]

Democrats would agree, if a Democrat president were the one to nominate her successor.

[bert]

The women lose, the game timed out

They must start over

[BlueHorseShoe]

Jonathon Turley tweeted today RBG was completely inappropriate to say this. I tweeted back this isn’t the first time she’s done so publicly.

[gibsonguy]

Congress imposed a 1982 deadline on states hoping to ratify the ERA.

The House is about to vote to rescind it. Does the Senate have to also? Any freepers know? If you think the LBGT is destroying the culture now if the ERA became law it would make what is going on now look like the 50’s. Not even churches would be safe harbor.

[bigbob]

Extra credit for using those two words in the same sentence

[fwdude]

I read an excellent exposé on the issue of the expiration of the ERA the other day in which the author explained the logical need for time limits. It’s illogical to expect intergenerational laws to be passed which affect future generations directly without their input. Time passes with changes in values. We should not be bound to the contemporaneous zeitgeist of several generations ago without current debate and approval.

Regardless, the intended affect of the ERA in the early 70’s was completely different from the implied DEEMED meaning the left intends to give it in this day. For instance, in the 70’s, the drafter never intended for “sex” to include cross-dressing trannies, but today’s Demonic-rats intend to press this meaning.

[etcb]

If this deadline were to be found invalid, is it possible that under such finding, other less palatable unratified amendments would still be pending? Could that be the motivation for her sudden experiment with sanity.

[Publius]

The ERA was sent to the states in March 1972 with a seven-year ratification window in the joint resolution of Congress. By 1979 not enough states had ratified to meet the three fourths bar, and several states had rescinded their ratifications, an act known as retrocession, or rescission as the shortened legal term. Congress reset the ratification window to March 1982, but there was a problem.

Congress used the legislative process, not the amendatory process, to do this. The legislative process requires only a simple majority in the House and Senate and a presidential signature. The amendatory process requires a two thirds vote in the House and Senate; the president is not a participant. President Carter had misgivings about the constitutionality of what Congress had done, but he signed it anyway and decided to let the courts hash it out.

The National Organization of Women took it to federal court in the case of NOW v. Idaho. The federal district court stated that Congress used the wrong process to extend the ratification window by three years; therefore, the ratification window closed in March 1979, and no other ratifications past that date could be considered.

This decision was appealed to the federal circuit court, which declined to hear the case. The Supreme Court received the case after the March 1982 window had closed, declared the case moot and refused to grant cert, i.e. to hear the case.

The only way to revive the ERA would be to start the process all over again and get two thirds of both Houses of Congress to send it to the states for ratification. The recent ratifications of three states are null and void, and thus they are no more than virtue signaling.

The Justice Department issued a ruling stating that the ratification window closed in March 1982 – which was an error. It actually closed in March 1979 as decreed by the federal court in Idaho. The department ordered the Archivist of the United States not to count the three recent ratifications.

The first attempt to get around this was to file a suit in federal court ripping the ratification window from the joint resolution and opening it up for further ratifications. It was understood that such a suit would fail. Federal courts do not like to tamper with settled law, especially something like the Dillon decision that affects process. Only the Supreme Court itself could change Dillon, and that would throw the entire amendatory process into chaos. While the Left enjoys chaos, the courts do not.

Let’s analyze this.

• Even if the House repealed the unconstitutional March 1982 window, the Senate would not consider it, nor would the President sign it.
• Even if enacted into law, repeal would only clean up the legislative mess left over when the federal court ruled that Congress had used the wrong process to extend the ratification window in the first place.
• Even if enacted into law, the ratification window would be reset to March 1979, not reopened to infinity. This is exactly what the federal court ruled in the first place.

Bottom line: The ERA is dead, and nothing Congress or the courts can do will bring it back. Only by starting all over again can a new ERA be submitted by Congress to the states for ratification.

[Empire_of_Liberty]

Heck, if it had passed in ‘77 there would have only been 2 sexes protected.

If they restart it today, there will be how many, 36?

[lepton]

The House is about to vote to rescind it.

---

It no longer exists, having sundowned in 1982. They’d need to meet the standards of an amendment to do so, and so would the Senate and the states.

[PghBaldy]

“The Price is Right” Losing Horn - Gaming Sound Effect (HD)

https://youtu.be/_asNhzXq72w

[lepton]

The House is about to vote to rescind it.

---

It no longer exists, having sundowned in 1979. They’d need to meet the standards of an amendment to do so, and so would the Senate and the states.

[jz638]

Good luck getting the ERA ratified without the alphabet soup of special interests claiming they also need to be equally protected

[Political Junkie Too]

If I recall correctly, in the 1970s the ERA was intended to correct job and pay discrepancies. That problem has been largely solved, and something that specific didn't belong in an amendment to the Constitution.

The Constitution's purpose is to provide the framework for the roles of the people and the states vis a vis the federal government. Amending the Constitution should be limited to issues between the people and the federal government, between the states and the federal government, and between the states themselves.

Issues between the people themselves should not be put in the Constitution. This is why the 18th amendment failed.

-PJ

[gibsonguy]

Thank you for taking the time and effort to give a detailed and comprehensive response. It is a reassuring explanation. The ERA as written applied to today’s America world as catastrophe there’s no other word for it. RBG as a sitting SC Justice had no business even commenting on it. It would mean a recusal would be absolutely called for if it landed at the SC. Of course rats never recuse, never.

[Cedar]

Excellent post. An example of FR at its best!