General Discussion

sabbat hunter

(6,966 posts)

53. There is nothing in the constitution

Reply to Bluetus (Reply #21)

Fri Jan 17, 2025, 09:14 PM

Jan 2025

that says a proposed amendment is allowed to have a time limit to when it can be ratified.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

eShirl RandomNumbers

87 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

SCOTUS will throw out the ERA in a NY minute. [View all] speak easy Jan 2025 OP

Uh no. boston bean Jan 2025 #1

No? speak easy Jan 2025 #2

What do you mean by "alternative facts ERA" ? It's the same one as it ever was. Hekate Jan 2025 #3

March 22, 1979 was the ratification deadline for the ERA. speak easy Jan 2025 #6

we had 7 years to ratify it rampartd Jan 2025 #56

That's the point. They won't have to fight it Bluetus Jan 2025 #21

Biden is stirring up the conversation on making wnylib Jan 2025 #23

Trump won't give it a minute's notice Bluetus Jan 2025 #25

There's nothing for them to "shitcan" tritsofme Jan 2025 #29

Even more basically, the Archivist has not accepted it Bluetus Jan 2025 #48

The archivist sabbat hunter Jan 2025 #54

Actually NARA DOES have an official role Bluetus Jan 2025 #61

You think women's lack of equal standing before the law isn't one of the HUGE issues? LearnedHand Jan 2025 #68

Health care and fair pay are economic issues Bluetus Jan 2025 #70

Of course Trump will ignore it. And of course SCOTUS wnylib Jan 2025 #49

But an important portion of the America Public hears this as sort of bookend to Biden's term... electric_blue68 Jan 2025 #66

The facts don't support that Bluetus Jan 2025 #67

It's all optics setting a narrative Macrophylla Jan 2025 #31

This is the wrong hill to die on right now. Bluetus Jan 2025 #52

I completely agree with repetition. Bluetus Jan 2025 #64

The condescension from you is un necessary Macrophylla Jan 2025 #69

There is nothing in the constitution sabbat hunter Jan 2025 #53

Very true SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #58

On what grounds? The required number of states ratified it in 2020. JohnSJ Jan 2025 #4

March 22, 1979 speak easy Jan 2025 #7

The ABA argues the deadlines make no difference spooky3 Jan 2025 #14

Well then it is settled MichMan Jan 2025 #15

Truly, the ABA is actually the rulers. Igel Jan 2025 #50

"The ABA argues ... speak easy Jan 2025 #16

There is no role for SCOTUS in the constitutional amendment spooky3 Jan 2025 #17

So the executive can simply declare an amendment ratified, speak easy Jan 2025 #18

He has no formal role, either. He simply made a statement. spooky3 Jan 2025 #28

... then who has standing? speak easy Jan 2025 #34

The states ratified the ERA, according to the ABA. spooky3 Jan 2025 #35

A State that has rescinded ratification will petition SCOTUS. speak easy Jan 2025 #38

I guess we will see. Nt spooky3 Jan 2025 #42

I am not looking forward to it. speak easy Jan 2025 #44

Consider the TikTok case. Igel Jan 2025 #51

There is a strong legal argument that rescinding a ratification is unconstitutional itself. Wiz Imp Jan 2025 #63

So the American Bar Association, a private organisation, hath decreed it. We must bow low before our new rulers Seeking Serenity Jan 2025 #57

Who claimed that? The point is that, contrary to what has been asserted in this thread, it spooky3 Jan 2025 #62

SCOTUS SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #65

Often missing from the conversation is that Tribe has tried to pitch this to SCOTUS previously FBaggins Jan 2025 #71

The American Bar Association is made up of lawyers RandomNumbers Jan 2025 #83

The DOJ lawyers SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #85

"New Rulers" ?? Wow, you seem to have A LOT of antipathy to women RandomNumbers Jan 2025 #84

You mean people like RBG when she said the process needed to start over? MichMan Jan 2025 #19

There is role SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #24

Do you think there aren't any constitutional law experts who disagree with Tribe? onenote Jan 2025 #32

Of course some may disagree, but it's not just Tribe; it's also the ABA. spooky3 Jan 2025 #33

Many constitutional law scholars disagree with the second part of your statement. Wiz Imp Jan 2025 #60

Dillon v. Gloss Shrek Jan 2025 #22

Related case Shrek Jan 2025 #45

And five of them rescinded n/t MichMan Jan 2025 #12

Right. Importantly those rescissions occurred before the 38th state ratified. onenote Jan 2025 #36

Apparently that would make a lot of people posting quite happy. I assume they never thought it would become law hlthe2b Jan 2025 #5

I was a libertarian in the 1970s. speak easy Jan 2025 #10

SCOTUS has do say on what is in edhopper Jan 2025 #8

"SCOTUS has do say on what is or not in the Constitution" speak easy Jan 2025 #9

Is there something in the Constitution edhopper Jan 2025 #11

Is there something in the Constitution speak easy Jan 2025 #13

I do realize edhopper Jan 2025 #40

"SCOTUS decides which amendments ... " speak easy Jan 2025 #27

Is there some thing in the Constitution that says the court can declare a law unconstitutional onenote Jan 2025 #37

They can declare a law unconstitutional edhopper Jan 2025 #39

They can interpret the provisions of the constitution that describe the amendment process. onenote Jan 2025 #43

Sorry - that just doesn't make sense FBaggins Jan 2025 #72

If the country adds a new Amendment edhopper Jan 2025 #78

That isn't the question FBaggins Jan 2025 #79

There's been quite a few developments re sex/gender. nolabear Jan 2025 #20

I don't think they get the chance to do so. elleng Jan 2025 #26

So the executive can declare an amendment to be ratified speak easy Jan 2025 #30

Yes, they may do that edhopper Jan 2025 #41

Only because the case won't make it to them FBaggins Jan 2025 #73

I do hope that this withstands the legal challenges, but in this era I can hardly be confident fishwax Jan 2025 #46

I agree SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #47

There isn't anything to challenge FBaggins Jan 2025 #74

Not yet -- but there will be if any court makes a ruling that accepts the argument that the amendment is in effect fishwax Jan 2025 #81

True enough - but that was actually my point FBaggins Jan 2025 #86

Agree 100% n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #87

Yep JustAnotherGen Jan 2025 #55

It will have to get to the court first SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #59

Those supporting this position have to ask themselves why that didn't happen five years ago FBaggins Jan 2025 #75

It will be a 9-0 decision by the SCOTUS Polybius Jan 2025 #76

It will be hard to tell what the final vote is FBaggins Jan 2025 #80

The problem with the ERA is that the congress put a time limit on it's ratification. Jacson6 Jan 2025 #77

Time limit is a standard practice on amendments madville Jan 2025 #82