House votes to extend (retroactively) time limit for ERA ratification

2,030 Views | 22 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by APHIS AG
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

The House on Wednesday adopted a resolution to remove the deadline for ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to formally ban discrimination on the basis of sex as one of Democrats' top legislative priorities.
Lawmakers passed the resolution largely along party lines, 222-204, to send it to the Senate. Four Republicans joined with all Democrats in support of the measure.
The vote comes after a federal judge ruled earlier this month that three states' recent ratifications of the ERA came too late to ensure its addition to the Constitution.
Quote:

States were granted a seven-year deadline in 1972 to ratify the ERA, which was later extended to 1982. But only 35 states had ratified the ERA by then, falling short of the three-fourths needed to successfully amend the Constitution.

Virginia became the 38th state last year to ratify the ERA and clinch the three-fourths threshold, following votes by Nevada and Illinois since 2017 albeit more than 40 years after Congress first endorsed the proposed amendment.

Proponents argue that Congress should act to remove the original deadline from decades ago so the ERA can still be ratified.
Quote:

The judge's ruling earlier this month followed a similar opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel last year that the ERA is no longer pending before the states and can't be ratified because its deadline expired.

When asked about the legal counsel's opinion, Attorney General Merrick Garland said in written answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation process that "any opinions or legal advice I might give on this subject would be based solely on the law, and not on any other consideration."
The Hill

Just start the hell over if it is that important.
MouthBQ98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So can they back their way in like that?

The last thing we need is another poorly thought out amendment that results in more harm than good such as the 18th.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MouthBQ98 said:

So can they back their way in like that?

The last thing we need is another poorly thought out amendment that results in more harm than good such as the 18th.
IMO, no they can't do that retroactively. With today's unpredictable federal judiciary? Who knows?
Ag87H2O
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MouthBQ98 said:

So can they back their way in like that?

The last thing we need is another poorly thought out amendment that results in more harm than good such as the 18th.


This pretty much sums up the Democrats attitude currently, especially given the courts newfound hands-off approach to everything.
InfantryAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

MouthBQ98 said:

So can they back their way in like that?

The last thing we need is another poorly thought out amendment that results in more harm than good such as the 18th.
IMO, no they can't do that retroactively. With today's unpredictable federal judiciary? Who knows?
Maybe they can vote against slavery in the US, and backdate it to 1619.

Then they could say they voted against it, before they were for it.

I'm going to categorize this story as "things I would have laughed about the absurdity 5 years ago, while reading it in The Onion."
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

I'm going to categorize this story as "things I would have laughed about the absurdity 5 years ago, while reading it in The Onion."
So true. People have lost their damn minds.
Ag In Ok
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Take the deal in hand or push back and watch it explode to maximum intersectionality.
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If ratification can never truly expire through retroactive changing of deadlines, then states need to be able to rescind their ratification as times change. States, through changing legislatures, may no longer desire to ratify an amendment and shouldn't be chained to a ratification that is 50 years old. The process cannot be indefinite. Either passes or not. It can't just stay open until it passes because then the only true outcome to it is that it does.
Ag87H2O
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ABATTBQ11 said:

If ratification can never truly expire through retroactive changing of deadlines, then states need to be able to rescind their ratification as times change. States, through changing legislatures, may no longer desire to ratify an amendment and shouldn't be chained to a ratification that is 50 years old. The process cannot be indefinite. Either passes or not. It can't just stay open until it passes because then the only true outcome to it is that it does.
Excellent point.
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ABATTBQ11 said:

If ratification can never truly expire through retroactive changing of deadlines, then states need to be able to rescind their ratification as times change. States, through changing legislatures, may no longer desire to ratify an amendment and shouldn't be chained to a ratification that is 50 years old. The process cannot be indefinite. Either passes or not. It can't just stay open until it passes because then the only true outcome to it is that it does.


5 already have

But the process can be indefinite. See 27th Amendment

But with ERA, congress put a deadline in place. If they change that deadline, then the ratification process should start over
TxTarpon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
But Bobby Riggs died baby.....
----------------------------------
Texans make the best songwriters because they are the best liars.-Rodney Crowell

We will never give up our guns Steve, we don't care if there is a mass shooting every day of the week.
-BarronVonAwesome

A man with experience is not at the mercy of another man with an opinion.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ABATTBQ11 said:

If ratification can never truly expire through retroactive changing of deadlines, then states need to be able to rescind their ratification as times change. States, through changing legislatures, may no longer desire to ratify an amendment and shouldn't be chained to a ratification that is 50 years old. The process cannot be indefinite. Either passes or not. It can't just stay open until it passes because then the only true outcome to it is that it does.
Can we get rid of the income tax that way??

But jokes aside I am reminded of RBG. She was a staunch supporter of the ERA to no one's surprise. But when asked if the ERA would lead to opening women's bathrooms to men, she scoffed that that was a stupid question as it would definitely not do that, nor would anyone ever try to make that argument.

Oh really, Ruth?

So I have to wonder why this effort now? It it because of LGBQT...aiming for something in particular?
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TxTarpon said:

But Bobby Riggs died baby.....
Are you old enough to have watched that? I was. What a hoot!
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Interestingly, RBG thought process needed to start over
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ABATTBQ11 said:

If ratification can never truly expire through retroactive changing of deadlines, then states need to be able to rescind their ratification as times change. States, through changing legislatures, may no longer desire to ratify an amendment and shouldn't be chained to a ratification that is 50 years old. The process cannot be indefinite. Either passes or not. It can't just stay open until it passes because then the only true outcome to it is that it does.
I think I read a few months ago, that there are two or three states that desire to change their vote on ratification. I don't know which ones, though.

They should definitely be allowed to rescind their vote for ratification.

ETA: BMX beat me to it. Five states! They should definitely be allowed to change their minds.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BMX Bandit said:

Interestingly, RBG thought process needed to start over
That's right. Had forgotten that when I was writing my post. A rare time RBG and I agree. Although there have been a few over the many years she was on the Court.

Thanks for the reminder!
torrid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hey, amendments have been known to take 200 years to pass.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
torrid said:

Hey, amendments have been known to take 200 years to pass.
Such as?
torrid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

torrid said:

Hey, amendments have been known to take 200 years to pass.
Such as?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unless I missed it was there a time limit such as was present (and extended in a timely fashion) on that amendment?

Makes a big difference.
doubledog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
torrid said:

Hey, amendments have been known to take 200 years to pass.
The 13th amendment passed in 1865, however Mississippi passed the amendment in 1995, so the amendment can stay on the books for a long time.

Thank you I should have said ratified in 1865. The 13th amendment was ratified in MS in 2013.
torrid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The 13th Amendment was ratified in only a matter months. Those states that ratified in later years (or centuries) only did so as a symbolic act.

Best I can tell, the 27th Amendment, limiting when congressional pay raises can take effect, is a bona fide amendment to the Constitution. It was first passed in 1789, but had no sunset provision. It would resurface every few decades until it finally was ratified by enough states in 1992.
Earl_Rudder
How long do you want to ignore this user?
torrid said:

aggiehawg said:

torrid said:

Hey, amendments have been known to take 200 years to pass.
Such as?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
And of course the jackass that spearheaded it was a t-sip. They really do ruin everything.
APHIS AG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They can backdate all they want for there it is going to stay.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.