journals.law.harvard.edu
Good work. Though your presentation lacks intellectual honesty. It omits the legal conclusion of those arguments in favor of ratification. Those arguments failed, albeit on non-merit grounds, at both trial and appellate levels.
Also, the Harvard article you cite fails to address SC precedent on Congressional deadlines for Amendment ratification. Specifically, Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921)
Annotation
Primary Holding
It is not unconstitutional for Congress to require that a new constitutional amendment must be passed within a certain time.
Like the scholar from whom I got these ideas, I support the ERA. I just don't think it's been ratified in the Constitutional sense. https://reason.com/volokh/2025/01/17/bidens-dubious-declaration-that-the-equal-rights-amendment-has-
been-duly-ratified/
#71
No. I provided the context and gave instructions on how to get to the language I was discussing.
The straight forward holding of Plyler is that states cannot deny equal protection to illegal aliens. To get there the Court had to address whether illegals are "subject to" state jurisdiction.