Statement from Vice President Kamala Harris on the Equal Rights Amendment

[Quiet Em]

Equality is a fundamental promise of our democracy. That is why the Equal Rights Amendment belongs in our Constitution. It makes our nation stronger, and it is the law of the land because the American people have spoken in states across our nation.

History teaches us that civil rights are fought for and won with every generation. That continues to be true today, which is why I have spent my career fighting for freedoms and to expand opportunities for women and girls. It has always been clear that when we lift up women, we lift up children, families, communities, and all of society. Now, Americans must continue to fight for a more equal and just nation where everyone has the opportunity to realize the promise of America.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2025/01/17/statement-from-vice-president-kamala-harris-on-the-equal-rights-amendment/?utm_source=miragenews&utm_medium=miragenews&utm_campaign=news

[jls4561]

1. The condensed version: About damn time!

[MichMan]

2. If it's now established as the "law of the land" , when does it go into effect?

[progressoid]

3. Never.

As far as I can tell, this is just for show.

[hlthe2b]

10. Well, I have more respect for Laurence Tribe than any other constitutional lawyer and he says you are wrong:

https://contrarian.substack.com/p/the-equal-rights-amendment-at-long?r=1ndny&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action

Here's a bit, but read the whole thing at the link above.

Laurence Tribe - The Equal Rights Amendment at Long Last [View all]
It is not necessary for the National Archivist to publish the ERA in order for it to be adopted according to the provisions of the Constitution.


In our modern age of broadcast, cable and internet communication, the President’s announcement itself performed that function.

Accordingly, our Constitution now demands that “equality of rights under the law cannot be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.”

It’s long past time!

[MichMan]

13. RBG said it needed to start over

and that any change is the deadline would have to pass Congress.

[hlthe2b]

14. I loved RBG but she is no longer relevant, having not heard the argument that Tribe presents.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

16. Just so I'm clear

Are you contending that Tribe has a greater knowledge of what is and isn't Constitutional than RBG did?

The fact that she is no longer here is irrelevant to the question at hand.

[hlthe2b]

18. She did not live to hear it litigated. She was a tremendous SCOTUS justice, but not a constitutional scholar/litigant

and as the former, she needed to hear the litigant arguments before deciding. (just so you are clear.. )

[SickOfTheOnePct]

23. We'll just agree to disagree

When comparing the breadth and depth of Constitutional knowledge of Tribe and RBG. I'm not aware of anyone, living or dead, who knew more about the Constitution than RBG.

And she wasn't a Constitutional scholar? Um, ok.

[hlthe2b]

26. that you diminish Laurence Tribe says all I want to hear from you. I said she was not a constitutional scholar litigant.

which makes a difference. Her role was different. And you make these statements/assessments all without even reading Tribe's opinion first--not surprising since you didn't even read what I wrote either. Determined that ERA fail, eh? Okay. Celebrate with MAGA because I'm sure they will agree with you. Welcome to ignore. Uggh.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

27. I did read his opinion

and I'm not diminishing him, I'm saying that IMO, he can't hold a candle to RBG when it comes to knowledge of the Constitution. You claimed she wasn't a Constitutional scholar, which is patently false, and said that her opinion is irrelevant because she's dead.

The fact that you can't disagree with someone without accusing them of being MAGA says much about you...

[hlthe2b]

31. Can you read? I said RBG was not a constiutional scholar litigant. She was not. She was a wonderful SCOTUS justice

but never litigated a case before SCOTUS. Nor had she ever heard a case similar to this to hear the argument much less decided on it. She was making an off-the-cuff assessment about something that was nothing more than a general hypothetical. It was not and had not been litigated. There is a tremendous difference and a reason why SCOTUS justices often are reticent to talk about possible cases in the future.

That you can't see the difference between your similar glee to the RW and my actually stating YOU WERE MAGA--WHICH I MOST CERTAINLY NEVER DID, shows you need to slow down and actually read/comprehend what is written. That you do not is your issue.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

32. She argued six cases before the Supreme Court n/t

[hlthe2b]

38. Not a single one remotely related to ERA or abortion or anything related. Tribe, on the other hand has argued 36

most involving civil rights. He likewise has taught constitutional law since 1968 at Harvard.


Nowhere have I demeaned RBG--whose painted picture is on my office wall as we "speak." But, you apparently have nothing but contempt for Tribe and no, I'm not having it. I feel as though your contempt extends to those fighting for ERA. So, I am done with you.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

41. But that isn't what you said

You said she hadn't been a litigant before the Supreme Court.

I've shown nothing close to contempt for Tribe, but if that's what you choose to believe, have at it.

[FBaggins]

61. Hard to say whether your error here is in not knowing RBG or not knowing the ERA

She had more than one case that was directly related to discrimination on the basis of sex.

She is a dramatically better judge (pun intended) of the constitutional issues involved in the ratification of the ERA

[SickOfTheOnePct]

34. Why are you assuming glee?

I have two daughters, I would love for the ERA to be ratified. But I want it to be done the right way, and there are very valid questions about this purported ratification that need to be answered, not just for this amendment but for any future amendments.

Disagreeing with what you say is not the same as not understanding what you say.

[hlthe2b]

45. Your willingness to devote this much energy into promoting the meme the RW has advanced since VA's vote

-- that it is all settled-- is so damned telling. You may as well just tell the "little women of DU and elsewhere should just not worry our little heads about it" nor listen to one of our nation's most celebrated and successful constitutional scholars who supports fighting for its ratification--in SCOTUS or whatever it takes. Your daughters deserve better and far more support than what you are advancing.

No skin in the game makes it quite easy, doesn't it?

I am so reminded of Dr. King's assessment of the "Fair Day supporters" he faced among the southern white populace as eloquently put in his Birmingham jail letter:

Such similarities :

“…that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action’; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a ‘more convenient season.’ ”

The great enemy of justice are those moderates who feign outrage at societal injustice, but whose outrage conveniently disappears when real change threatens their status. These moderates are more comfortable leaving unchallenged the assumed moral authority of certain institutions, traditions and practices that are the purveyors of injustice rather than confronting their own role in maintaining these institutions. The hard truth is that the comfort of the status quo is always preferable to pursuing the demands of justice.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

47. You said

four hours ago that you were going to out me on ignore…why don’t you do so, then you won’t have to worry about seeing posts with which you disagree.

I have the right to state my opinion every bit as much as you do, and I will continue to do so.

If you don’t like that, then again, I suggest you put me on ignore.

[hlthe2b]

48. Being called on your posts, attitudes and disgusting disregard for the rights of others struck a nerve, did it?

tough. That privilege you were born with does not prevent you from having to justify your comments--especially when you seem to think you get to decide the fate of equality for half the country. No one else gets a say--even our foremost constitutional scholar.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

49. Believing

that this needs to be settled in the courts is a disgusting disregard for the rights of others? Wanting to ensure that the amendment is added in a manner that stays within the bounds of the Constitution is a disgusting disregard for the rights of others?

Believe what you choose.

[hlthe2b]

51. You said it was settled. I have at no time said it should not be litigated, just as Tribe has made the case.

I believe what you actually have said and it isn't supportive of anything supporting the rights of half this country's population, but rather denigrates even trying to follow the argument laid out so clearly by Tribe and soon to come, others. Not all scholars, whether men or women, are so content to keep women permanently unequal, subservient, and unempowered. And I find men suggesting otherwise to be unworthy of consideration of any kind. That you say you have daughters really ought to make you rethink your attitudes.

[hlthe2b]

53. Finally changing your tune...

Well, I'm glad I have you at least willing to think of those daughters, their future, and that Tribe has made the case= worth litigating. Took you long enough, but I'm glad.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

55. You're a trip

I haven’t changed my opinion or my stance one bit since we started the discussion.

😂😂😂

[hlthe2b]

57. Your denial is record-setting. I'll give you that.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

58. 😂😂😂

[Quiet Em]

33. Justice Ginsburg would be celebrating today.

[FBaggins]

65. Not even close

Keep in mind that nothing happened yesterday. The president merely said that VA’s purported ratification of the amendment five years ago sealed the deal.

The problem here is that Ginsburg was alive and on the court when VA did that. If she would be celebrating today, then she would have been celebrating when it happened.

Instead she lamented that the action had no effect because the deadline had passed - and she wished that the process would start again someday.

[Quiet Em]

66. Now that President Biden has essentially "published" the Equal Rights Amendment via his announcement yesterday

there will be a lawsuit forthcoming. There will be arguments over what Title V of the Constitution requires for an amendment, requirements that the Equal Rights Amendment reached in January of 2020. I like where we stand and I like our chances. It's a fight that has been long overdue and very much necessary.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

68. The President didn't

“publish” anything, he simply stated his opinion. Only the Archivist can publish an amendment.

Someone will need to initiate a case saying that their rights afforded by the “28th Amendment “ have been violated.

The courts will then need to decide if a) it is Constitutional to include a ratification deadline (current precedent says it is) and if not, then b) can states rescind their ratification.

I’m guessing this will take years to decide.

[Quiet Em]

69. The last thing anyone should want is for States to be allowed to rescind their ratification of amendments

That would open up such a mess.

The 11th Amendment became law when President Adams announced it's ratification.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

70. I agree states

shouldn’t be allowed to rescind ratification once final ratification is complete, not seeing why they shouldn’t be able to prior to final ratification.

The 11th Amendment didn’t have a ratification deadline, and there was no National Archivist at the time, so the two situations are not the same.

Now, the case could be made that the law that dictates that the National Archivist has to publish an amendment is unconstitutional, but that hasn’t been challenged, to my knowledge.

It will fascinating to see how this unfolds, and what case is the first to make a claim of violation of the “28th Amendment”.

Will it be a woman from the left, or a man from the right?

[FBaggins]

71. In no sense did he "publish" the ERA - and there will be no forthcoming lawsuits

For the same reason that there weren't any successful lawsuits when VA claimed to have ratified the amendment in the first place.

There is no need for ERA opponents to go to court. The incoming administration isn't going to be requiring policy changes in line with the ERA or bringing suit against states that violate it. The first "28A" lawsuits would be brought by ERA supporters who believe that one or more states have violated the supposed amendment... and they have no more that they can point to than they had a week ago. "But judge... a former president said that it was ratified!" doesn't carry any weight.

All other arguments were available five years ago... yet nobody was making them. If Biden is correct that VA was the final required state in the process... then that was just as true five years ago.

[thebigidea]

43. not like Larry has had a good track record this past decade

I wish I never endured his lip-smacking analysis, absolutely none of it ever amounted to anything. He's done a lot of good work in his career, I just don't see his pundit role on TV as very valuable.

[progressoid]

60. Tribe and Sullivan conveniently ignore the current makeup of the Supreme Court.

They can quote precedent and the almighty constitution all they want. It doesn't seem like the current SC cares two shits about that. (see Roe/Dobbs, Chevron USA, etc.).

I hope I'm wrong. But one wonders, if this was such a landmark thing, why did the Biden admin wait until three days before they hit the road to declare it the law of the land? They could have done this a long time ago. I suspect they planned on being in office for another 4 years to deal with the impending litigation (with a supportive Dem congress). This is a Hail Mary play. Cuz this is going to the Supreme Court.

[Jit423]

95. As they should. No where in the Constitution does it say, "...depending on who is sitting on the SCOTUS."

However, as we now have come to realize, no law means anything unless there are those who will enforce it. That is why an enforcement clause and punishment for non enforcement provisions should be stated in any law passed and included int he Constitution.

[Polybius]

4. According to them, it's now

I'll be continually checking the official lists of Amendments to see if it's added.

[Quiet Em]

5. It's in effect right now.

It will remain in effect until someone tries to remove it from law.

[Kaleva]

62. A president or VP has no role in the ratification process

They are expressing their personal opinions.

[Quiet Em]

67. The Equal Rights Amendment has met all the requirements to be included in the Constitution.

It's time to acknowledge it as the law of the land.

[Kaleva]

85. It isn't up to a president to do so

[Quiet Em]

88. When the ERA met all the requirements the con artist was in the office and he chose not to acknowledge it.

It doesn't go away just because the con artist refused to acknowledge it.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

90. If it had met all of the requirements

It wouldn’t have needed anyone other than the archivist to acknowledge it.

It’s not like President Biden’s opinion makes a difference in whether or not it has been ratified.

[Quiet Em]

92. It has met all the requirements

AGs Steve Marshall, Jason Ravnsborg and Jeff Landry can keep trying to claim otherwise but they don't get the final say in this.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

93. Correct

And neither does Laurence Tribe…the federal courts, most likely SCOTUS, will have the final say.

[Kaleva]

99. There's a specific procedure to follow

And nowhere in the Constitution does a president have a role in ratification of an Amendment.

[Quiet Em]

100. The specific procedure to follow as outlined in the Constitution is

1) Pass by 2/3 of each house of Congress.

2) Ratified by 3/4ths of states

Done and done.

As far as the President's announcement, I will refer to this perfect post on Bluesky from @katekelly.bsky.social

The Archivist is just tasked w sending out a birth announcement when an amendment is born 👶🏻

Just because the announcement hasn’t gone out yet, doesn’t mean the kid doesn’t exist.

In this case—the kid’s already 5 years old 👧🏻 & POTUS sent it out for her. Better late than never!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

101. Laughable n/t

[madville]

72. Actually the opposite

It can’t be added to the Constitution until at least two major issues are resolved.

First the ratification deadline, there is precedent for it since every amendment for the last 100 years has included one. This is the major reason it can’t be officially recorded, it would be against the law to do so.

Second, several states have rescinded their ratification votes. There is nothing in the Constitution addressing whether this is allowed or not and would need to be litigated at some point to make this official.

A state that ratified it is going to have to sue to have it added to the Constitution and win, which is unlikely for at least a decade with the current court.

[TheRickles]

6. According to the Associated Press and Boston Globe, the 1982 deadline for it to be ratified has passed.

So this is all for show, with no legal impact:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=19913191|

[hlthe2b]

11. AP writers/editors are not constitutional lawyers. Hell they are hardly reporters. See Laurence Tribe on this

(my post upstream) #10).

[TheRickles]

44. I submitted this AP story before Tribe's commentary was released. I'll defer to him. :-)

[eShirl]

22. how were they able to put a deadline on it?

[madville]

73. Every amendment for about the last

100 years has had a ratification deadline included, it’s a standard practice that there is precedent for.

[valleyrogue]

79. False. Show me the "ratification deadline" in the text of ERA or any other constitutional amendment.

It ain't there. But of course you know more than Laurence Tribe or any other constitutional scholar.

"Time limits" are NOT binding.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

81. SCOTUS precedent

says differently.

But time will tell.

[madville]

82. Here's a link to the official position

Of the federal government.

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2025/nr25-004

At this time the position is that the ratification deadline is valid and the ratifications for the amendment have expired. Proponents to have the amendment approved can of course use Tribe’s arguments in court.

If no deadline exists, why did Congress extend the deadline to 1982 and why has Congress attempted to remove the 1982 deadline entirely several times since then? That’s a good indication that it does in fact exist, no?

[madville]

94. Here you go:

“Beginning with its 1917 proposal of what would become the Eighteenth Amendment, Congress has specified a deadline of seven years for the ratification of every proposed amendment except for the proposal that became the Nineteenth Amendment recognizing women’s suffrage.”

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artV-4-2-1/ALDE_00013054/#:~:text=Beginning%20with%20its%201917%20proposal,Nineteenth%20Amendment%20recognizing%20women's%20suffrage.

So all but one in the last 108 years had a ratification deadline attached.

[valleyrogue]

80. It was advisory and not binding.

NO constitutional amendment has ANY "time limit" for ratification in the text of the amendment.

[FBaggins]

83. If that were true... why would SCOTUS toss out Tribe's case?

In 1982 they tossed his case because the deadline had passed without the amendment receiving enough support... and thus the question was moot.

If Congress couldn't set a deadline (and extend it)... then the case would not have been moot.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

96. No facts please

Obviously SCOTUS recognized the right of Congress to set a deadline, and until/unless that precedent is overturned, nothing is going to change in the Constitution.

[Shrek]

84. Amendments 18 and 21 beg to differ n/t

[valleyrogue]

89. ABA and Tribe know what they are talking about. "Time limit" advisory was invalidated per USSC decision in 1982.

National Organization For Women v. Idaho was the case Tribe successfully argued in front of the USSC. THIS is why there were no further extensions. The USSC invalidated them.

1982 was the year the second "time limit" expired. Congress didn't do anything because of the USSC decision.

ERA is the law of the land. Time for people to quit buying the LIES the media peddled in the early 1980s, saying the amendment had "expired" and that Schlafly and her army of "housewives" somehow "won." They didn't.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

91. 😂😂😂😂😂

[tritsofme]

97. This is misinformation. That case was dismissed as moot because the deadline imposed by Congress had already passed

by the time SCOTUS heard the case.

By dismissing the issue as moot, the Court implicitly recognized that Congress had the ability to set a deadline on the ERA.

The fact that “Congress didn’t do anything” after 1982 is meaningless. They chose not to extend the deadline, Republicans controlled the Senate at that point, it’s not surprising.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

108. And yet the poster

continues to post it on various ERA threads.

[Wiz Imp]

25. There is a strong legal argument that the deadline itself was unconstituional

In February 2024, the American Bar Association (ABA) passed resolution 601, supporting implementation of the ERA. The ABA urges implementation because a deadline for ratification of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not consistent with Article V of the Constitution and that under Article V, states are not permitted to rescind prior ratifications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment#Ratification_in_the_state_legislatures

[SickOfTheOnePct]

30. I agree 100% that there are strong legal arguments

And those arguments need to be settled, for this amendment and for any future ones.

The Constitution never mentions rescinding prior ratifications, either permitting it or denying it, so that is indeed an open question that also needs to be resolved once and for all.

[Wiz Imp]

35. I said elsewhere that Biden's action should be celebrated even if it doesn't hold

Simply getting some of these legal arguments settled would be a great service (even though the current Supreme Court can't be expected rule in a favorable way).

[SickOfTheOnePct]

37. Agree n/t

[hlthe2b]

46. Oh, so NOW you agree there is a case to be made and should be settled via litigation. After what, two dozen posts

saying the opposite? That Tribe knows Nothing? That only YOU know and that it is 1. too late; 2. Settled law; and 3. no one else has any argument whatsoever.

Wow. You are just something. What other people's rights are you so willing to adopt such a cavalier attitude towards? So easy to have no skin in the game isn't it SOTOP? I feel for your daughters.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

50. I've said all along that it will be

settled in the courts. You accuse others of not reading what is written, but you appear to do that of which you accuse others.

[hlthe2b]

52. Not to me, you haven't. Only a constant stream of memes about it being settled, Tribe has no case to make, etc. etc.

If you have given a momentary thought to your daughters' futures and have started changing your attitude then I am very glad. Maybe I haven't wasted all my time with you.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

54. I've posted no memes

Never used the word settled, never said Tribe didn’t have a case to make, none of the things you’ve said.

My opinion hasn’t changed one bit…

Biden saying it’s ratified doesn’t make it so
Harris saying it’s ratified doesn’t make it so
Gillian’s saying it’s ratified doesn’t make it so
Tribe saying it’s ratified doesn’t make it so

I believe that the date requirement means it hasn’t been ratified, and I believe it will go to the courts and the courts will say it hasn’t been ratified.

[hlthe2b]

56. Proving once again you never read Tribe's argument given you spiel the meme about the date when there is

case law that argues against that assertion.

[MichMan]

59. This case law? Dillon vs Gloss 1921

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/256/368/

[valleyrogue]

78. The AP is full of shit.

There is NO "deadline" for Constitutional amendments.

[valleyrogue]

105. Those media outlets are WRONG. DEAD WRONG.

The ERA has been misreported time and time again. There are NO time limits on the ERA per 1982 USSC decision. THAT is why Congress didn't put in any more time limits. They weren't binding.

I will not believe anything a bunch of ignorant reporters promulgate when the horse's mouth--in this case Prof. Laurence Tribe, who argued the USSC case mentioned above, says otherwise, as does the ABA. THEY know what they are talking about, not the media.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

107. You really should read the case n/t

[tritsofme]

112. Please stop spreading misinformation about the 1982 case, repeating known falsehoods doesn't help your argument.

[AllyCat]

7. I love this so much!!!

[Quiet Em]

8. me too.

[AllyCat]

9. Lots of doomsayers here. I choose to celebrate!

[hlthe2b]

12. Yes. I keep posting Laurence Tribe's assessment of this (that it is now law) and they keep poo pooing HIM!

So, I'm keeping tabs on the number of self-proclaimed "better than Tribe" constitutional lawyers we have here on DU.

[Quiet Em]

19. Unbelievable how many people are upset that the ERA is now the law of the land.

This is a BFD. I'm celebrating too.

[hlthe2b]

20. I think the misogyny has become embedded...

[SickOfTheOnePct]

24. Unbelievable that you equate

questioning whether or not it was really ratified, given the deadline, with being upset.

[EdmondDantes_]

29. I don't think anyone here is upset, I think we're realistic about what this means

Given the time limit, the revocations, our impending administration, and the current courts, I don't see this actually holding.

I'd be happy to be wrong, women should absolutely be equal under the law (as well as trans people and other minorities). But unfortunately I'm skeptical.

[bdamomma]

28. I started a thread on this.

I could have had my info wrong, but this was what I was getting at. I hope this current info is accurate.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219907289

[melm00se]

15. President Biden's announcement will certainly

draw legal challenges.

- The ability to put a deadline on a proposed amendment's ratification is considered constitutional. The deadline has certainly passed.
- There is no constitutional provision that allows or does not allow for a state to rescind their ratification.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

17. Exactly

And these are valid questions that need to be answered, for now and for any future amendments.

[hlthe2b]

21. You have not even bothered to read constiutional scholar Laurence Tribe's argument that defeats yours.

He cites cases that make it clear the "deadline" was NOT constitutional. I have posted it multiple times. But, no. YOU KNOW BEST. (hint... no you don't)

So why are you so seemingly happy to have women remain second-class citizens that you won't even bother to hear from one who has litigated (and might STILL) on constitutional issues before SCOTUS over decades? Why won't you even read his opinion?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

36. Why do you continue to assume

that people who are concerned about the validity of this so-called ratification are gleeful about the possibility of it not being valid? Are you able to understand that perspective that while we want the ERA to be ratified we want to ensure that it is ratified in a way that conforms to the Constitution?

[hlthe2b]

39. Because they express it and refuse to read a knowledgable assessment that differs from their own uninformed one?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

42. As I told you before

I have read it. I've also read what RBG said, and I've also read the DOJ opinion.

[Kaleva]

64. Where in the Constitution does it say a president is involved in ratification

[FBaggins]

74. It's apparent that you're the one who hasn't read Tribe's argument

He cites cases that make it clear the "deadline" was NOT constitutional.

That's untrue. He mentions (not cites) one case that he argued (unsuccessfully) over four decades ago. He claims that SCOTUS "treated the time limit in the resolution as non-binding" in that case... but that statement is disingenuous at best. That case was about Idaho trying to rescind their previous ratification of the amendment and the questions were whether that was possible, whether Congress had the power to adjust deadlines, and whether Congress had the power to set a deadline in the first place (all things Tribe argues here as though they are settled law).

The problem with his spin is that SCOTUS did no such thing. Instead, they dismissed the case as moot once the 1982 deadline had passed. It didn't matter whether or not Idaho could rescind their ratification because the deadline had passed and ratification had failed whether they could rescind or not.

If SCOTUS agreed with Tribe - the case would not have been moot.

[melm00se]

103. Until and if

he sits on the federal bench, all he has is an opinion.

The reality is that the deadline WILL be brought as part of a challenge despite Mr. Tribe's opinion and I have learned with this Supreme Court that the only opinion that matters is the one that comes from the 6 bastards on the bench.

[spooky3]

40. See Wiz Imp's response, #25.

Professor Laurence Tribe argued the same things, in a Substack post today.

[valleyrogue]

109. Tribe is the one who went before the USSC in 1982 in the case that

rendered "time limits" on constitutional amendments as not binding.

But, according to "experts" in the Substack comments and here and other places, Tribe doesn't know what he is talking about, and neither does the American Bar Association.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

111. Untrue - read the case n/t

[Kaleva]

63. Also, the Constitution doesn't give a president a role in the ratification process

[madville]

76. Correct

The President can’t simply override a law (the ratification deadline in this case) by issuing a statement or even an executive order. That’s why it can’t be added to the Constitution now, it would be in violation of the law to do so.

[madville]

75. Legal challenges from which side though?

It would seem that it’s on the pro-ratification side to initiate a challenge since the law doesn’t allow it to be added to the Constitution because the deadline passed.

The other concern there is that they would likely lose in court, making this all moot.

[valleyrogue]

106. You are WRONG.

National Organization for Women v. Idaho, a 1982 USSC decision, rendered "time limits" as advisory and not binding.

WHY are people and those in the media continuing to misrepresent the issue?

[tritsofme]

113. This is simply false. Stop spreading misinformation.

As has been explained to you multiple times, the case was dismissed as moot because the Court recognized that the deadline had already passed, and there was nothing for them to decide.

[Mike Niendorff]

77. Notice what she didn't say:

"The Equal Rights Amendment has now been ratified."

This is political theater.

Meanwhile, President Biden can unilaterally release Volume II of Jack Smith's report RIGHT NOW.

**RIGHT FUCKING NOW**

And unlike this meaningless distraction -- which 100% will not survive the Packed SCOTUS -- the release of the complete, unredacted Mar-A-Lago report WILL have lasting consequences for Trump and his co-conspirators.

Is anybody listening?

Does anybody care?

Or are we dancing on the deck of the Titanic as it goes down, congratulating ourselves on our clever rhythm?

This is not a time for clever indulgence. This is a knife fight. If you can't handle it, get out of the way and make room for those who can.

Release the report, let the criminals stand naked for their crimes.

And stop wasting our time pretending you can amend the Constitution by wishful thinking.


MDN

[valleyrogue]

104. What are you even talking about?

There is NO "political theater." The ERA IS the law of the land.

Read the Tribe-Sullivan article before commenting. I don't know why people don't read things before they post.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

110. Read the actual case n/t

[valleyrogue]

86. Text of the ERA

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."

Virginia ratified the ERA in 2020. The two years have already passed. It is the law of the land, no matter what an idiot "archivist" thinks, and she is likely brainwashed by the media and right-wing interests not to publish.

NO "time limit" for the states to ratify. There is nothing to discuss further. Only people engaging in intellectual dishonesty, including "reporters" in the media, claim the ERA isn't valid because of an advisory resolution that was overturned by the USSC in National Organization For Women v. Idaho.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

87. You probably should read the joint resolution

that Congress passed in order to send the proposed amendment to the states…

[SickOfTheOnePct]

98. You are not being honest

About the 1982 case. It was dismissed as moot because the deadline had passed, not because the deadline was invalid.

[elleng]

102. 'It has always been clear that when we lift up women, we lift up children, families, communities, and all of society.'