Archivist says Equal Rights Amendment can't be certified as Democrats push Biden to recognize it

[Polybius]

Source: ABC News

WASHINGTON -- In a rare joint statement, the archivist and deputy archivist of the United States said Tuesday that the 1970s-era Equal Rights Amendment cannot be certified without further action by Congress or the courts, as Democrats press President Joe Biden to act unilaterally on its ratification before he leaves office next month.

The five-decade push to amend the Constitution to prohibit discrimination based on sex remains stalled. Congress sent the amendment, which guarantees men and women equal rights under the law, to the states in 1972 and gave states seven years to ratify it, later extending the deadline to 1982. But the amendment wasn’t ratified by the required three-quarters of states before the deadline.

Four years ago, however, Virginia lawmakers voted to ratify the amendment, becoming the 38th and final state needed — albeit nearly four decades after the congressionally mandated deadline for ratification.

More than 120 House Democrats, led by Reps. Cori Bush and Ayanna Pressley, called on Biden on Sunday to direct the archivist to certify and publish the amendment despite the missed deadline.

Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/archivist-equal-rights-amendment-certified-democrats-push-biden-116876049

[rogerashton]

1. I just downloaded the constitution,

and as I read it, it does not allow the Congress to set a deadline.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

5. It is in case law, not the constitution.

Dillon v. Gloss

[SunSeeker]

6. As the SCOTUS 6 have shown, precedent means nothing now. nt

[OneCrazyDiamond]

7. Do you really think we should be listening to them?

I don't.

We should have expanded the court.

[SunSeeker]

9. Of course, the Court needs expanding to 13 seats.

Congress set it at 9 judges when there were only 9 federal circuit courts. Now there are 13 federal circuit courts.

But only Congress can set the number of SCOTUS seats, via legislation. We didn’t have the votes to do it when we had the majority. I think after the disastrous decisions of SCOTUS, we might have the votes next time we regain the majority in Congress and win the White House.

[Polybius]

10. But when will that be?

Earliest it can happen is January 20th, 2029. And that's only if everything goes perfect and we hold a trifeca.

[SunSeeker]

12. Of course. In the meantime, we fight. We do what we can.

We don't fold and give up. That won't get us the White House and Congress back.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

14. I blame Manchin

and Sinema for not allowing it to be tried.

[MichMan]

16. I blame the states that waited until after the deadline to ratify it n/t

[OneCrazyDiamond]

19. I blame them for not expanding the court.

Not the ratification.

[manicdem]

23. Can do it now

We still have time to expand the court if we rush it through now. We can pass the law to expand it to 13, then let the Republicans fill it.

[Polybius]

8. Several states also rescinded

So that's another hurdle.

[Prairie Gates]

2. Certify it and let the courts sort it

It's the GOP way. Let them eat their own trash.

[SheltieLover]

3. Absofuckingloutely!!!

[electric_blue68]

25. Oh, heck, why not! It at least might expend some of their energy there, instead of on something bad for a whole...

bunch of vunerable people.

[maxsolomon]

4. People: the DEPUTY Archivist agreed.

Game over, man.

[atreides1]

11. You mean Colleen Shogan the White Washer?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/america-s-top-archivist-accused-of-whitewashing-national-museum/ar-AA1tlv2R

"Shogan has reportedly ordered the removal of references to Martin Luther King Jr., the incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II, the government’s displacement of Indigenous tribes, union organizers, birth control, and more, the Wall Street Journal reports."

"The specific changes to new exhibits include the replacement of a photo of King with one of Richard Nixon meeting Elvis Presley."

"Shogan “told employees to remove Dorothea Lange’s photos of Japanese-American incarceration camps from a planned exhibit because the images were too negative and controversial, according to documents and current and former employees” and her aides “also asked staff to eliminate references about the wartime incarceration from some educational material.”

[cstanleytech]

15. Correct me if I'm wrong but the Constitution does not provide for there to be a time limit set, correct?

It doesn't even provide for a State to take back a vote that was already recorded as in approval, correct?
If that's true then it should be certified

[Shrek]

17. It neither prohibits nor requires a time limit

Which means the text of the amendment is the controlling factor.

[MichMan]

20. The amendment ratified by Congress had a time deadline

Every amendment passed since Prohibition also had a deadline attached.

From what I understand, the deadline was omitted in the version ratified by the states.

If true, that would seem to indicate that the states didn't ratify the same amendment as Congress. That could mean that the entire amendment is therefore invalid.

[cstanleytech]

21. I thought the controlling factor was what the Constitution said though?

[Shrek]

24. But it doesn't say anything at all about time limits for ratification

Which means there's nothing to prevent a legislator from including one in the text.

Several other amendments were similarly crafted.

[FBaggins]

27. You are indeed incorrect

The constitution mentions a deadline several times.

Don’t forget that, once ratified, amendments are part of the constitution.

[littlemissmartypants]

18. Please, just sign it Mr. President!!!

Let it be the last gasp of the end of your garden of…

[mackdaddy]

22. Does anyone think that if this was something Trump wanted, that he would not just over ride and order the archivist

to do whatever he wanted. Trump overrode the denial of Jarred having access to secret materials.

This is a big enough thing that I agree, Biden should just order it done, and let the courts fight it out.

[usonian]

26. Simple, get a new archivist.

He HAS the power.

[FBaggins]

28. He does not have the power

The archivist is a senate-confirmable position. It’s far too late to replace her.

Not would doing so have any more effect on the actual constitution than if she woke up one day and added an amendment that said artificial turf may no longer be used in football.

[Midwestern Democrat]

30. This whole thing is just Exhibit A of how silly politics has gotten. Everyone conceded for years that the ERA died in

1982 but we're now in an era where cheap stunts like this designed to get applause from the base (and nothing more) is the norm. Of course, the accumulative effect of stuff like this winds up disillusioning young voters (once they realize they've been bamboozled with empty promises), but I guess that politics circa 2024.