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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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/

[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.

[spooky3]

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

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