Posted on 02/11/2020 2:49:01 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at vox.com ...
Make that: would be catastrophic
The Democrat Party cares not on whit about laws. And is adept at ignoring them to get what it wants.
Thanks for that explanation!
Well, for whatever reason, she’s right here.
How do you extend the deadline, then cover for the five states that withdrew their support?
If anything is to happen, they do need to start over.
IMO < the Constitution already provides grounds for equal rights. I don’t like to see special interest groups pile on things as if they are new, when they aren’t.
To argue that congress has the power to write up a constitutional amendment but not have the power to put a time limit on it, is absurd in the extreme.
They decided to place a time limit on this particular amendment. The time limit expiered in 1982. Its over.
I'm having trouble finding the word, "inappropriate" in the Constitution.
Can anybody help me out?
"19th Amendment:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
The ERA would just give activist judges a new excuse to legislate politically correct laws from the bench.
The noise that we're now hearing concerning failed ERA is election year stunt by desperate, anti-PDJT Democrats imo.
The categories are not one and the same.
Every day she looks more and more like Stephen Hawking.
Very informative post. Thanks.
Great, clear analysis. Thank you.
I don’t think I understand what you’re saying. Explain please.
Democrats don’t care if the ERA passes, they’re just happy to use it as a talking point.
Clear explanation, thank you.
Rescind an expired time limit? Is that like telling your wife you wont go the bar that closed in 1982 again?
Since the time limit expired, all states that had actually voted to ratify need to have a redo... Tie expired for it to count.
Morons.
Gregory Watson didn’t take no for an answer when it came to ratifying an amendment first proposed in 1789. But it didn’t have an expiration date like the ERA. The passage of the 27th Amendment makes for an interesting read.
“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.”
Excellent timeline and history of this proposal.
No one mentioned that 3 states later rescinded their vote for the ERA.....or is that correct?
Actually, FIVE states rescinded their vote to approve the ERA, thank God.
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.