Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Tennessee Hillbilly

(670 posts)
Fri Jan 17, 2025, 11:34 AM Jan 17

Biden Says Equal Rights Amendment Is 'Law of the Land'

Source: Political Wire

“President Biden moved to enshrine the Equal Rights Amendment in the Constitution, declaring that the measure to prohibit sex-based discrimination had cleared the necessary hurdles to go into effect after a half-century of debate,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

“The announcement came just days before Biden is set to surrender power to President-elect Donald Trump, and it was certain to face legal challenges and fierce objections from Republicans.”



Read more: https://politicalwire.com/2025/01/17/biden-says-equal-rights-amendment-is-law-of-the-land/



Wall Street Journal link:
https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/biden-equal-rights-amendment-constitution-2b990992?st=CCXYEq
37 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Biden Says Equal Rights Amendment Is 'Law of the Land' (Original Post) Tennessee Hillbilly Jan 17 OP
Will ERA protect the rights of Trans? no_hypocrisy Jan 17 #1
I doubt it DeepWinter Jan 17 #21
The SCROTUS will nullify this in about 3 days. nt. Voltaire2 Jan 17 #2
Nothing to nullify at this point FBaggins Jan 17 #4
And 9-0 at that Polybius Jan 17 #17
Here is the STATEMENT BumRushDaShow Jan 17 #3
Statement of President Joe Biden on the Equal Rights Amendment LetMyPeopleVote Jan 17 #5
Well Done Joe!!! MayReasonRule Jan 17 #6
Sadly, SCantiGOP Jan 17 #7
Yes. DavidDvorkin Jan 17 #8
On what basis? There's no time limit in the Constitution. pnwmom Jan 17 #9
Don't Think That's Been Litigated. GB_RN Jan 17 #11
Every amendment passed since prohibition had a deadline MichMan Jan 17 #12
The time limit itself was unconstitutional, then the whole Amendment might be Polybius Jan 17 #15
Where in the Constitution does it say a state's approval can be rescinded? nt pnwmom Jan 17 #26
Where does it say it can't? madville Jan 17 #29
The same page that it says that they can't n/t Polybius Jan 17 #33
It doesn't prohibit one either MichMan Jan 17 #28
Congress can make its own rules for its own conduct. Igel Jan 17 #31
I wouldn't say sadly, because it might be 9-0 Polybius Jan 17 #24
If it has been the 'Law of the Land' for almost five years now, why hasn't anyone filed a lawsuit citing it? Jose Garcia Jan 17 #10
Do it, Joe! One last home run! calimary Jan 17 #13
I think Biden is taunting Trump who will bear the fault if he wipes it out. CTyankee Jan 17 #19
Cite Article IV of the Consitution. Igel Jan 17 #32
Huh, I also though Roe vs Wade was also 'Law of the Land'. republianmushroom Jan 17 #14
It was "settled law," until it wasn't. (n/t) thesquanderer Jan 17 #18
That's what the lying supreme court justices, appointed by the most notorious liar in history, said UNDER OATH. BComplex Jan 17 #23
They didn't lie. They danced around the question with non-answers. thesquanderer Jan 17 #25
I understand that. But they knew what they were being asked. Playing verbal gymnastics, under oath, BComplex Jan 18 #34
I agree. But they were smart enough with their answers to avoid perjury. thesquanderer Jan 18 #35
So how come it's not on Wiki yet? Polybius Jan 17 #16
Not enough fanfare intrepidity Jan 17 #20
That's what they said about Roe... sakabatou Jan 17 #22
Post removed Post removed Jan 17 #27
It's a nice gesture madville Jan 17 #30
I heard this wouldn't be finalized because the archivist wouldn't accept it LymphocyteLover Jan 18 #36
the fate of the amendment seems very much up in the air LymphocyteLover Jan 18 #37
 

DeepWinter

(931 posts)
21. I doubt it
Fri Jan 17, 2025, 04:13 PM
Jan 17

It's very specifically written "male" "female". There are already Trans activists on TicTok and IG pushing back against ERA because of that.

It's going nowhere though. His statement was a statement of opinion. Hypothetically he does an Executive order. Executive orders are the weakest way to get something done. The next President coming in can make their own Executive order overturning it on day 1.

BumRushDaShow

(150,029 posts)
3. Here is the STATEMENT
Fri Jan 17, 2025, 11:43 AM
Jan 17
The White House

January 17, 2025

Statement from President Joe Biden on the Equal Rights Amendment

Home Briefing Room Statements and Releases


I have supported the Equal Rights Amendment for more than 50 years, and I have long been clear that no one should be discriminated against based on their sex. We, as a nation, must affirm and protect women’s full equality once and for all.

On January 27, 2020, the Commonwealth of Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. The American Bar Association (ABA) has recognized that the Equal Rights Amendment has cleared all necessary hurdles to be formally added to the Constitution as the 28th Amendment. I agree with the ABA and with leading legal constitutional scholars that the Equal Rights Amendment has become part of our Constitution.

It is long past time to recognize the will of the American people. In keeping with my oath and duty to Constitution and country, I affirm what I believe and what three-fourths of the states have ratified: the 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex.

###

pnwmom

(109,801 posts)
9. On what basis? There's no time limit in the Constitution.
Fri Jan 17, 2025, 12:42 PM
Jan 17

The time limit itself was unconstitutional.

GB_RN

(3,324 posts)
11. Don't Think That's Been Litigated.
Fri Jan 17, 2025, 01:03 PM
Jan 17

As best I can recall, there is no legal precedence. You can be certain, that if I’m correct in that, the GOPQ-balls (Q-We Hate Women) will sue. I can then see The Corrupt Six saying the time limit set by Congress is valid and therefore, the amendment cannot be recognized.

MichMan

(14,691 posts)
12. Every amendment passed since prohibition had a deadline
Fri Jan 17, 2025, 01:23 PM
Jan 17

Were they all unconstitutional?

Polybius

(19,625 posts)
15. The time limit itself was unconstitutional, then the whole Amendment might be
Fri Jan 17, 2025, 02:04 PM
Jan 17

Also, why do you oppose states rescinding?

madville

(7,603 posts)
29. Where does it say it can't?
Fri Jan 17, 2025, 08:09 PM
Jan 17

There’s nothing that says it can or can’t be rescinded so there’s nothing definitive with that argument.

Igel

(36,665 posts)
31. Congress can make its own rules for its own conduct.
Fri Jan 17, 2025, 09:55 PM
Jan 17

That's in the Constitution.

They made the rule for ratification--they included a deadline.

There's no role for the President in adopting a constitutional amendment, by the way.

Polybius

(19,625 posts)
24. I wouldn't say sadly, because it might be 9-0
Fri Jan 17, 2025, 04:43 PM
Jan 17

Why can't states rescind before an Amendment is ratified?

Jose Garcia

(3,131 posts)
10. If it has been the 'Law of the Land' for almost five years now, why hasn't anyone filed a lawsuit citing it?
Fri Jan 17, 2025, 12:58 PM
Jan 17

CTyankee

(65,906 posts)
19. I think Biden is taunting Trump who will bear the fault if he wipes it out.
Fri Jan 17, 2025, 02:54 PM
Jan 17

there's a whole new generation of women who may not be political now but sure would be if the Trump administration just cancelled their rights. It was the right thing to do morally and politically. Thank you, President Biden!

Igel

(36,665 posts)
32. Cite Article IV of the Consitution.
Fri Jan 17, 2025, 09:59 PM
Jan 17

It gives the President the authority to make this kind of proclamation!


Oh, wait, there is no Article IV. And Congress sets its own rules ... per the Constitution.

Look, I'm not a lawyer but at least I've taught high school civics, which goes through the Constitution line by line, then each of the amendments then significant SCOTUS (and other) cases from the 1790s to the 1980s.

But hey, this is Texas, I'm sure other states do a much better job with their required civics/government class for seniors.

BComplex

(9,337 posts)
23. That's what the lying supreme court justices, appointed by the most notorious liar in history, said UNDER OATH.
Fri Jan 17, 2025, 04:34 PM
Jan 17

THEY LIED. Perjury. It's called perjury and it's not only a basis to impeach them, but also to throw them in jail.

thesquanderer

(12,548 posts)
25. They didn't lie. They danced around the question with non-answers.
Fri Jan 17, 2025, 05:27 PM
Jan 17

It's as if I were to ask you, "Hey B, would you consider murdering someone?" And you answer "I believe murder is illegal." Your answer would be true, and would imply that you wouldn't do it, but it doesn't actually answer the question. Similarly, these people were asked things like whether they agreed with how Roe vs Wade was decided, and they would answer talking about its status as settled law, established precedent, etc. but never actually saying that they agreed with the decision, and never saying that they would refuse to consider a challenge to it. They were focussed not on answering the question, but on how to avoid answering it.

Here's a good article on it. No direct lies, just a lot of weasel words and misdirection.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

BComplex

(9,337 posts)
34. I understand that. But they knew what they were being asked. Playing verbal gymnastics, under oath,
Sat Jan 18, 2025, 12:16 AM
Jan 18

knowing the ultimate deceit they are holding in their hearts, should be the BIGGEST disqualifying offense they could commit, to sit on the highest court in the land IMHO.

thesquanderer

(12,548 posts)
35. I agree. But they were smart enough with their answers to avoid perjury.
Sat Jan 18, 2025, 10:25 AM
Jan 18

I suppose in theory an overwhelming Dem majority in congress at some point in their lifetime appointments could try to impeach them, though the recent roe-v-wade deceivers would have to get in line behind the far more impeachable out-and-out corrupt ones.

intrepidity

(8,219 posts)
20. Not enough fanfare
Fri Jan 17, 2025, 03:05 PM
Jan 17

Biden needs to make a big gold-framed document "28th Amendment" and offer signed copies to the first 10,000 buyers of their copy for the low, low price of $399.49 and make that shit go viral!

*That's* how stuff gets done these days!

Response to Tennessee Hillbilly (Original post)

madville

(7,603 posts)
30. It's a nice gesture
Fri Jan 17, 2025, 08:11 PM
Jan 17

This declaration won’t change anything for several established reasons, but it at least gets the conversation back out there.

LymphocyteLover

(7,669 posts)
36. I heard this wouldn't be finalized because the archivist wouldn't accept it
Sat Jan 18, 2025, 11:20 AM
Jan 18

then a FB friend wrote: "Biden has actually usurped the archivist and given the required notice to the states himself. So it's done."

Is this true? Does anyone know?

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Biden Says Equal Rights A...