General Discussion

mn9driver

(4,632 posts)

46. It's a short amendment. Link below.

Fri Jan 17, 2025, 01:15 PM

Jan 17

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-86/pdf/STATUTE-86-Pg1523.pdf

The time limit for ratification was 7 years, and is specified in the amendment itself. The amendment was submitted by Congress in March, 1972, which started the clock.

It’s nice that Joe did this, but I don’t think SCOTUS is going to buy it. I would be happy to be wrong.

What this gesture might do is to draw attention to it and start a drive to pass it—again—and make THIS Congress go on record as being for it or against it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

135 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Biden says Equal Rights Amendment is ratified, kicking off expected legal battle [View all] dalton99a Jan 17 OP

Surely now, it can no longer be a crime to treat dying women. Irish_Dem Jan 17 #1

Any challenges with be Trump's SCOTUS and Trump's DOJ and he'll own it if the ERA is overturned. TheBlackAdder Jan 17 #96

He will own it proudly and convince Americans he saved women. Irish_Dem Jan 18 #114

Why did he wait 4 years? MichMan Jan 17 #2

He doesn't want to deal with ramifications while he's presidenting. LeftInTX Jan 17 #7

So, instead of it being defended by his own DOJ, he left it up to the Trump DOJ. n/t MichMan Jan 17 #9

It seems that way. Seems like a Hail Mary move. LeftInTX Jan 17 #11

I agree we should never underestimate Joe. I'm sure he thought it through. Walleye Jan 17 #32

Agreed. InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 17 #101

And when that happens, will you criticize Trump as much as you have Biden? W_HAMILTON Jan 17 #31

Damn good question, damn good comments. Thanks. (nt) Paladin Jan 17 #49

Yes...that's the EXACT reason Roy Rolling Jan 17 #97

Some State? I would put my money on Texas - Paxton has no shame. walkingman Jan 17 #28

Of course he will. Another state could beat him too. LeftInTX Jan 17 #30

Never underestimate how some women Dem4life1234 Jan 19 #135

Unfortunately I think there's a lot of things that could be said about EdmondDantes_ Jan 17 #13

Thanks "performative" is the word. LeftInTX Jan 17 #14

Republicans are the performative clowns 🤡. live love laugh Jan 17 #23

I haven't seen anything that would convince me this isn't performative EdmondDantes_ Jan 17 #26

AND .... bothsiderism rears its ugly head .... live love laugh Jan 17 #27

By that logic here are some other bothsiderisms EdmondDantes_ Jan 17 #57

Why didn't he save the fucking world Monday morning QB? live love laugh Jan 17 #73

I look at it as a thorn in the side of the new administration Walleye Jan 17 #33

Oh, yes. ShazzieB Jan 17 #72

No, I think he's pitching a grenade. LisaM Jan 17 #64

Ask him. live love laugh Jan 17 #22

That's a good question, and there's no good answer msfiddlestix Jan 17 #78

What does it matter? Blue_Tires Jan 17 #81

So it would have already been in place the last 4 years ? MichMan Jan 17 #82

Then Trumpers would have killed it four years ago Blue_Tires Jan 17 #85

Because it ForgedCrank Jan 17 #87

With that and four dollars, he'll be able to buy a cup of coffee in Wilmington next week. NT mahatmakanejeeves Jan 17 #3

Nice... Hugin Jan 17 #4

Statement of President Joe Biden on the Equal Rights Amendment LetMyPeopleVote Jan 17 #5

And that SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #39

Worse than nothing, I'd bet quite a bit this goes to SCOTUS and torched Amishman Jan 17 #65

So liberal bloggers and pundits have been demanding this Blue_Tires Jan 17 #84

Thank you President Biden Quiet Em Jan 17 #6

What happens if the Archivist doesn't publish it ? MichMan Jan 17 #8

Seriously? tritsofme Jan 17 #10

This doesn't appear to be an order to publish it DetroitLegalBeagle Jan 17 #17

He just directed her to publish it MichMan Jan 17 #20

What would Trump do? Fire her and appoint a replacement to publish it. /nt bucolic_frolic Jan 17 #21

This message was self-deleted by its author Ursus Arctos Jan 17 #41

The National Archives is an independent agency DetroitLegalBeagle Jan 17 #25

That's good to know Polybius Jan 17 #50

Who the hell put a time limit on passing this anyway? I just don't know. Walleye Jan 17 #34

Congress did DetroitLegalBeagle Jan 17 #36

Congress, when it was passed 50 years ago MichMan Jan 17 #37

I think the Founding Fathers should have set every proposed Amendment to 10-15 years Polybius Jan 17 #53

Nothing happens. Biden just expressed a personal opinion Kaleva Jan 18 #111

She already won a court case affirming her position Shrek Jan 19 #133

This will be interesting, it's not immediately clear this is anything other than Biden's opinion. tritsofme Jan 17 #12

It's not an EO? LeftInTX Jan 17 #15

Its not an EO DetroitLegalBeagle Jan 17 #16

Another one. Sheesh. It's an Amendment. AllyCat Jan 17 #86

Thank you, President Biden. pandr32 Jan 17 #18

I don't see how it kicks off a legal battle FBaggins Jan 17 #19

Apparently the deadline for approval by the states was 1982(!), so this is all for show. TheRickles Jan 17 #24

I'm just wondering how this deadline got set? I'll check out the link. Walleye Jan 17 #35

Here's more info, from today's Boston Globe (behind a paywall) TheRickles Jan 17 #42

Not to mention the states that rescinded their ratifications SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #43

It's an interesting debate Polybius Jan 17 #56

An interesting debate to be sure SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #60

It might even be 9-0 or close to it Polybius Jan 17 #63

I imagine because it's not feasible to go find someone's ballot once it is submitted MichMan Jan 17 #66

Early voting is a whole new topic Polybius Jan 17 #67

Rescinding is not legal. valleyrogue Jan 17 #89

We really don't know SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #91

It certainly seems to me a deadline for ratification is reasonable. What if the 18th Amendment - prohibiting Midwestern Democrat Jan 18 #104

The 27th amendment became part of the Constitution 202 years after it was first proposed. Wiz Imp Jan 18 #105

IMO, that's a flaw in the Constitution Polybius Jan 18 #109

I agree with SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #115

So if the Democrats win Congress in the midterms, could they retroactively change the deadline I wonder Walleye Jan 17 #55

Perhaps SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #68

You can change a deadline before it happens, but how do you change it after the date? Polybius Jan 17 #69

It's from the Associated Press, so maybe it's posted elsewhere without the Globe's paywall. TheRickles Jan 17 #44

There is nothing in the Constitution saying there can be a deadline for ratification Wiz Imp Jan 17 #48

If the deadline is unconstitutional, then the entire Amendment might be invalid Polybius Jan 17 #76

Some Very smart legal scholars disagree and think it should stand. Wiz Imp Jan 17 #79

I respect you tremendously, but we disagree on this Polybius Jan 17 #88

There are strong legal arguments on the first two points. Wiz Imp Jan 17 #90

Serious question SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #95

No. But it is a valid opinion by the ABA. And this Supreme Court has already shown that they are more than willing Wiz Imp Jan 17 #98

Thanks for your response n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #100

Thanks for the detailed reply, and here's mine Polybius Jan 18 #108

Wrong. valleyrogue Jan 17 #94

I'm still curious SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #99

The "deadline" was always bullshit. valleyrogue Jan 17 #103

Your last line, 1000%. (We shouldn't need an ERA. FULL STOP.) RandomNumbers Jan 18 #128

Thank you, Joe SheltieLover Jan 17 #29

The "Christian" Taliban will never let that stand. nt CousinIT Jan 17 #38

It's About Damn Time!!! Do it, Joe! calimary Jan 17 #40

I am so confused. This is the effing 11th Hour of Biden's administration, not TGIF... Hekate Jan 17 #45

It's a short amendment. Link below. mn9driver Jan 17 #46

Biden is a great guy, so he's allowed to be wrong sometimes Polybius Jan 17 #47

VP Harris also concurs that it is now the law of the land MichMan Jan 17 #54

Then she's wrong too, because at this moment, it isn't Polybius Jan 17 #59

Thanks, President Biden! 🫶 still-prayin4rain Jan 17 #51

It is about time. I hope it survives in court. Martin68 Jan 17 #52

It wont Kaleva Jan 18 #112

My understanding is that there is a gray area involved in the ratification process. The required of states required Martin68 Jan 18 #122

And the courts will rule SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #123

Biden's action won't force anything Shrek Jan 18 #130

It's worth a shot HereForTheParty Jan 17 #58

Thank you, again, President Joe Biden! You are the best president of my lifetime. LaMouffette Jan 17 #61

I believe this is what I am MOST excited to hear about! AllyCat Jan 17 #62

What are the legal arguments that could be brought against it? LAS14 Jan 17 #70

Two legal arguments SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #71

Huh. Maybe I should have asked what the legal arguments are FOR ratification... nt LAS14 Jan 17 #74

None n/t Polybius Jan 17 #75

The main argument for implementation is that the arguments against are invalid Wiz Imp Jan 18 #107

Baloney. valleyrogue Jan 17 #92

We don't now that rescinding is illegal SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #93

It was a big story when the 38th state ratified (Virginia in 2020) Wiz Imp Jan 18 #106

thre was a 7 year deadline for ratification - ending in the early 1980s rampartd Jan 17 #77

So Biden is just dumping a legal fuss into Trump's lap to show his misogyny. nt LAS14 Jan 17 #80

I can't wait to hear the challenges. William769 Jan 17 #83

Might not be any challenges as a president has no part in ratification Kaleva Jan 18 #113

I mean the challenges to the ERA becoming law. William769 Jan 18 #116

It won't be SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #117

Thanks for a good explanation. William769 Jan 18 #118

this seems huge prodigitalson Jan 17 #102

A president doesn't have a role in the process of ratification Kaleva Jan 18 #110

This is going to get very interesting. niyad Jan 18 #119

I agree SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #120

Popcorn??? niyad Jan 18 #121

The reporters and some lawyers still continue with myths about ERA and ratification. valleyrogue Jan 18 #124

That doesn't sound like an accurate description of NOW v Idaho. The case was dismissed as moot tritsofme Jan 18 #125

Exactly SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #126

Meaningless. Time limit has expired. Callie1979 Jan 18 #127

Prepare SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #129

So your opinion is invalid if you die?? Thats a new one! Callie1979 Jan 19 #132

As a lifelong Democrat, I'm frankly appalled by a lot of the current liberal thought that's emerged in the blogosphere Midwestern Democrat Jan 19 #134

For any who missed it, here's a complete & comprehensible explanation... Hekate Jan 19 #131