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

Bluetus

(418 posts)
48. Even more basically, the Archivist has not accepted it
Fri Jan 17, 2025, 07:30 PM
7 hrs ago

and that is based on the DoJ opinion from 2020 after VA passed it. And then Garland's DoJ reiterated the 2020 opinion. Based on that, the Archivist has not added it to the Constitution, so it isn't anything at this point.

I guess somebody can bring a court case based on the argument that it SHOULD have been added to the Constitution in 2020, but that's a waste of time, IMHO.

The central issue is that the Constitution says nothing about any time limits, and the early amendments passed without regard to a specific cutoff date. However, in more recent amendments, it has been customary that the proposing language or the amendment itself state a time limit, usually 7 years. SCOTUS has twice ruled that Congress may set a reasonable deadline for ratification, and because that deadline is considered "dictum", it makes no precedent, and Congress has the power to extend the deadline, even after the legislatures have acted. https://www.equalrightsamendment.org/faq

So, in theory, this could sit forever until we have the votes in Congress to remove the deadline, at which time it could become a valid amendment. I doubt that the MAGA people will do that, so it just amounts to Biden doing some trash-talking 72 hours from his exit.

Recommendations

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

Uh no. boston bean 9 hrs ago #1
No? speak easy 9 hrs ago #2
What do you mean by "alternative facts ERA" ? It's the same one as it ever was. Hekate 9 hrs ago #3
March 22, 1979 was the ratification deadline for the ERA. speak easy 9 hrs ago #6
we had 7 years to ratify it rampartd 6 hrs ago #56
That's the point. They won't have to fight it Bluetus 9 hrs ago #21
Biden is stirring up the conversation on making wnylib 8 hrs ago #23
Trump won't give it a minute's notice Bluetus 8 hrs ago #25
There's nothing for them to "shitcan" tritsofme 8 hrs ago #29
Even more basically, the Archivist has not accepted it Bluetus 7 hrs ago #48
The archivist sabbat hunter 6 hrs ago #54
Actually NARA DOES have an official role Bluetus 5 hrs ago #61
You think women's lack of equal standing before the law isn't one of the HUGE issues? LearnedHand 1 hr ago #68
If course Trump will ignore it. And of course SCOTUS wnylib 6 hrs ago #49
But an important portion of the America Public hears this as sort of bookend to Biden's term... electric_blue68 2 hrs ago #66
The facts don't support that Bluetus 2 hrs ago #67
It's all optics setting a narrative Macrophylla 8 hrs ago #31
This is the wrong hill to die on right now. Bluetus 6 hrs ago #52
I completely agree with repetition. Bluetus 5 hrs ago #64
There is nothing in the constitution sabbat hunter 6 hrs ago #53
Very true SickOfTheOnePct 6 hrs ago #58
On what grounds? The required number of states ratified it in 2020. JohnSJ 9 hrs ago #4
March 22, 1979 speak easy 9 hrs ago #7
The ABA argues the deadlines make no difference spooky3 9 hrs ago #14
Well then it is settled MichMan 9 hrs ago #15
Truly, the ABA is actually the rulers. Igel 6 hrs ago #50
"The ABA argues ... speak easy 9 hrs ago #16
There is no role for SCOTUS in the constitutional amendment spooky3 9 hrs ago #17
So the executive can simply declare an amendment ratified, speak easy 9 hrs ago #18
He has no formal role, either. He simply made a statement. spooky3 8 hrs ago #28
... then who has standing? speak easy 8 hrs ago #34
The states ratified the ERA, according to the ABA. spooky3 8 hrs ago #35
A State that has rescinded ratification will petition SCOTUS. speak easy 8 hrs ago #38
I guess we will see. Nt spooky3 8 hrs ago #42
I am not looking forward to it. speak easy 8 hrs ago #44
Consider the TikTok case. Igel 6 hrs ago #51
There is a strong legal argument that rescinding a ratification is unconstitutional itself. Wiz Imp 5 hrs ago #63
So the American Bar Association, a private organisation, hath decreed it. We must bow low before our new rulers Seeking Serenity 6 hrs ago #57
Who claimed that? The point is that, contrary to what has been asserted in this thread, it spooky3 5 hrs ago #62
SCOTUS SickOfTheOnePct 5 hrs ago #65
You mean people like RBG when she said the process needed to start over? MichMan 9 hrs ago #19
There is role SickOfTheOnePct 8 hrs ago #24
Do you think there aren't any constitutional law experts who disagree with Tribe? onenote 8 hrs ago #32
Of course some may disagree, but it's not just Tribe; it's also the ABA. spooky3 8 hrs ago #33
Many constitutional law scholars disagree with the second part of your statement. Wiz Imp 5 hrs ago #60
Dillon v. Gloss Shrek 9 hrs ago #22
Related case Shrek 7 hrs ago #45
And five of them rescinded n/t MichMan 9 hrs ago #12
Right. Importantly those rescissions occurred before the 38th state ratified. onenote 8 hrs ago #36
Apparently that would make a lot of people posting quite happy. I assume they never thought it would become law hlthe2b 9 hrs ago #5
I was a libertarian in the 1970s. speak easy 9 hrs ago #10
SCOTUS has do say on what is in edhopper 9 hrs ago #8
"SCOTUS has do say on what is or not in the Constitution" speak easy 9 hrs ago #9
Is there something in the Constitution edhopper 9 hrs ago #11
Is there something in the Constitution speak easy 9 hrs ago #13
I do realize edhopper 8 hrs ago #40
"SCOTUS decides which amendments ... " speak easy 8 hrs ago #27
Is there some thing in the Constitution that says the court can declare a law unconstitutional onenote 8 hrs ago #37
They can declare a law unconstitutional edhopper 8 hrs ago #39
They can interpret the provisions of the constitution that describe the amendment process. onenote 8 hrs ago #43
There's been quite a few developments re sex/gender. nolabear 9 hrs ago #20
I don't think they get the chance to do so. elleng 8 hrs ago #26
So the executive can declare an amendment to be ratified speak easy 8 hrs ago #30
Yes, they may do that edhopper 8 hrs ago #41
I do hope that this withstands the legal challenges, but in this era I can hardly be confident fishwax 7 hrs ago #46
I agree SickOfTheOnePct 7 hrs ago #47
Yep JustAnotherGen 6 hrs ago #55
It will have to get to the court first SickOfTheOnePct 6 hrs ago #59
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»SCOTUS will throw out the...»Reply #48