Biden unilaterally ratifies the 28th Amendment
- Thread starter Ray Kinsella
- Start date
Only missed the ratification deadline by 38 years. No big deal.
Equal Rights Amendment Ratified
Biden has declared that the Equal Rights Amendment has been ratified because Virginia became the 38th state to ratify. I have often wondered why that happened and nobody paid attention to it but I guess this will bring it some attention. I can only guess that he's doing this to piss off MAGA...
iowa.forums.rivals.com
They could probably rule on if the ratification deadline was meaningful or not and if said deadline could be overcome by congress simply voting to retroactively extend the deadline to now.
Realistically it's not part of the constitution right now and Biden just looks bad doing this.
Time limit on this has long expired. Biden is acting like a dictator unilaterally stating this.
I like the idea of an equal rights amendment. Actually, I don't think it should be needed because equal rights should just be the law of the land but that wasn't the way our federal constitution was originally written. Similar to the Iowa constitution's equal protection under the law.
But, the Supreme Court ruled in the 18th century that the President has no role in adopting constitutional amendments. So it doesn't really matter what Biden thinks. And the resolution was pretty clear on when it had to be adopted. I don't think that this will hold and smells an awful lot like a last grasp by a president trying go make some sort of impact before he walks out the door next week.
But, the Supreme Court ruled in the 18th century that the President has no role in adopting constitutional amendments. So it doesn't really matter what Biden thinks. And the resolution was pretty clear on when it had to be adopted. I don't think that this will hold and smells an awful lot like a last grasp by a president trying go make some sort of impact before he walks out the door next week.
There’s no deadline in the Constitution and the 19th Amendment took 72 years to ratify. The deadline set by Congress for the ERA was in a preamble to the Amendment and not the text itself.
The resolution for the 19th amendment didn't have a "due date" on it, so there was no expiration on it. Almost every amendment has had a ratification due date.
I heard a story on NPR (mid December) about the amendment not being ratified. I was a kid when it came up and can remember seeing billboards about it at the time. Never knew what became of it until now. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
On one side there is the argument that the constitution says that once it passes congress and the states votes, the archivist has to publish it. As mnole03 mentioned, the 19th took 72 years to ratify, so there is precedent for things to take a long time.
On the other side is that for this amendment, congress put a 7 year deadline on the states to ratify. The constitution doesn't mention a deadline.
From the story that I heard, it sounds like legal scholars differ on this. I would imagine that the SCOTUS will have some opinion on the 7 year deadline.
Slick move by Biden. He seems to be doing things that if upheld will look good on his record. If not upheld, things will be undone during Trumps presidency, so Trump will get the blame.
On one side there is the argument that the constitution says that once it passes congress and the states votes, the archivist has to publish it. As mnole03 mentioned, the 19th took 72 years to ratify, so there is precedent for things to take a long time.
On the other side is that for this amendment, congress put a 7 year deadline on the states to ratify. The constitution doesn't mention a deadline.
From the story that I heard, it sounds like legal scholars differ on this. I would imagine that the SCOTUS will have some opinion on the 7 year deadline.
Slick move by Biden. He seems to be doing things that if upheld will look good on his record. If not upheld, things will be undone during Trumps presidency, so Trump will get the blame.
The entire text below is the resolution proposing the amendment, which includes the content of the amendment if it were ratified. I think the seven years thing is going to hold up. It isn't some extremely tight timeframe. If the people truly wanted this as an amendment then 3/4 of the states should have been able to ratify it within the 7 year window.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:
"ARTICLE —
"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
"Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
"Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."
Equal Rights Amendment - Wikipedia
I agree. From a political perspective, fighting this will be perceived as "anti women."
Old boy still has a couple of tricks up his sleave.
I’m not saying it means nothing, but the preamble to legislation isn’t binding.
Is no one concerned that the dems are ignoring the constitution and the legislative process! Oh I forgot,🤔 they always do what they accuse the republicans of doing.🤮
The constitution lays out a process for ratification of an amendment. What part of that process did Democrats not follow? Please be specific and cite the language from the constitution
I'm not going to make a party-based argument here because it doesn't matter Dem vs Rep in this or future cases. What matters is the rules are clear.
Congress proposes amendments. They propose a resolution which includes rules for the process and then the actual prosed amendment. Both houses have to pass the resolution to send it to the states.
The states then have to follow the rules in the resolution to determine if they want to ratify the amendment that was proposed in the resolution. Once 3/4 of the states have ratified it, and the guidelines of the resolution have been met, it becomes an official amendment to the constitution.
There is nothing in the constitution that says that you can ignore the rules laid out in the resolution. There is nothing that says that the president gets to decide when an amendment has been ratified. The constitution is owned by the people of the country. Congress is the branch of the government representing the people(or at least is supposed to be) and states also represent their people. Congress and the states determine what goes into the constitution and what doesn't. Not the executive branch and not the judicial branch.
The judicial branch can rule on whether or not the rules were followed in the process of amending the constitution, but they can't rule on if the amendment is or isn't constitutional. The executive branch is responsible for enforcing the constitution. That is the limitation of their powers in this situation.
They always seem to be able to find a way to do what they want, rules and laws be damned.
I am not a constitutional scholar but, I’m just asking. If Congress is empowered to make the rules are they not empowered to change the rules?
Sure, but the president doesn’t have that power. And Congress didn’t extend the date in perpetuity. So, once again I don’t see this holding up in a court case.
Also, to someone else’s question. The Supreme Court can’t strike down a ratified amendment, but they can strike down an illegal process to attempt to ratify it.
It should absolutely be in the Constitution, or rather it shouldn’t have to be stated at all because we just treat people equal, but no way this survives.
Yes. "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
Not when it comes to the constitution. They can rule on the process of enacting the amendment, but not on the amendment itself. This is one of the checks and balances in place over the judicial branch. If the people don’t like the way that the Supreme Court is ruling they can make a new amendment that the court has no power over and must follow. For instance, term limits or retirement ages for justices is one option that could be added to the constitution.
Thanks for the rudimentary civics lesson, but the process is entirely what is at issue here. Article V lays out the amendment process, and the courts are empowered to adjudicate disputes about whether that process was followed, including the very undecided question of whether Congress has authority to impose the time limitation that it did.
They sure did.
The whole thing is a political stunt, including Biden's phony passion when he announced it.
If he truly cared, he would have announced it when he first came into office. By doing it now he's just trying trying to stir up a controversy for new people to deal with. Such a dirtbag move, which is no surprise.
