In order to become an Amendment it would have to have been ratified within 7 years. That clearly didn't happen.

Biden can't just make it an Amendment. Is social media post. This is stupid.

Ratification doesn't occur by Executive tweet.

Also, I've read that at least a few states that originally ratified have subsequently rescinded which would bring the number of states below 3/4.

" The Constiution says nothing about a seven year limit. "

It's in the text of the Amendment, making it part of the Amendment itself.

#11Ronnie88

The Constitutin doesn't require NOR does it prohibit a time limit.

" First, only 35 " not 38 " states had ratified the ERA by the time the deadline set by Congress hit in 1982.

Second, five of those states who ratified had subsequently voted (before the deadline) to rescind their ratifications " which, if respected, would cut the number of ratifying states down to 30. (Initially, the amendment had broad bipartisan support, but a backlash from conservatives brewed as the 1970s went on and turned Republicans against it.)"

"he seven year statement is in the Congressional resolution proposing the amendment, not the actual amendment text.
The the text of the amendment is as follows."

A distinction without a difference.

And, even if I were to cede that argument (I don't), it doesn't change the fact that 5 states rescinded their initial ratification before the deadline that you are arguing doesn't pass muster.

So, even adding Virginia still leaves it short of the 3/4 necessary for ratification.

"It does not grant them authority to rescind such action.
#19 | POSTED BY JOHNNY_HOTSAUCE"

I am not seeing where it prohibits states from doing so.

If the issue was solely either:

A. The 7 year deadline doesn't pass Constitutional muster

-or-

B. States are prohibited from rescinding after ratification

But both? The archivist is refusing to ratify the Amendment. The push for ratification is limited to a small group of pols. Most legal experts seem to be scoffing. I am not making an appeal to authority with that. It's just that when I am not seeing any meaningful push from the legal community for this it suggests to me that this likely goes nowhere.

I'm not taking your bait, Redial

"It was a simple statement of fact.

#24 | POSTED BY REDIAL AT 2025-01-19 01:10 AM

No, it was a strawman.

"I don't know how he feels about the ERA"

Insouciant because I feel it's redundant. We have the equal protection clause and we have the 19th Amendment. I'm hard-pressed to conjure up an activity that a man can do by law that a woman cannot, from a Constitutional standpoint.

Advocates for the proposed 28th Amendment seem to believe that it constitutionally protects abortion up to the point of birth under all circumstances. Even that is not a slam dunk. At the end of the day, I just don't see it doing much of anything were it to be ratified.

"Equal pay for equal work"

Already enforced. Imperfectly - yeah, probably. But already enforced. I don't see ratification of this proposed amendment moving the needle hardly at all.

From my view it won't be ratified because, at this point, at best, it would have to hurdle both the 7 year deadline AND that a handful of states have subsequently rescinded their ratification.