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

valleyrogue

(1,835 posts)
11. It's valid. People need to stop with the "time limit" nonsense.
Sun Jan 19, 2025, 12:59 AM
Jan 19

The reason Congress didn't extend it after 1982 is because the USSC said any time limit was not binding on the amendment and was only advisory. That is direct from the horse's mouth, Laurence Tribe, who went before the court in the case National Organization for Women v. Idaho. The media did a total hatchet job then and now because they don't understand anything about it. They had a narrative Phyllis Schlafly, a right-wing hack who was also supported by the likes of the insurance industry, and her minions in the Eagle Forum and Stop ERA, "defeated" the amendment. They did no such thing.

Ask yourself why Congress didn't extend the amendment time limit further. There is NO answer but the USSC's decision on time limits re constitutional amendments. That is it.

States can't also change their minds once they have ratified an amendment. The only way a constitutional amendment can be overturned is with another one.

There are people here and over at Tribe's Substack who have the nerve to question whether he knows what he is talking about. He does, he argued the above case, and so does the American Bar Association, which Biden consulted.

There is really nothing else to talk about. People need to stop with the misinformation.

Recommendations

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

Will the courts support this amendment? Irish_Dem Jan 17 #1
They should have zero say in what becomes an amendment. Otherwise they are our rulers. boston bean Jan 17 #2
So the Archivist of the United States is the final authority on what gets certified and printed Seeking Serenity Jan 17 #8
She cannot deny it. She has a duty at this time boston bean Jan 18 #9
She doesn't see her duty that way Seeking Serenity Jan 18 #10
No, the Archivist has no authority in the matter. Her function is to make it public... Hekate Jan 19 #18
Should the courts get involved and overturn it - it will open the windows and doors to EVERYTHING being in play IMO. NoMoreRepugs Jan 17 #3
The court cannot overturn a constitutional amendment. n/t valleyrogue Jan 19 #14
True SickOfTheOnePct Jan 19 #20
I read that there was a deadline (1986 I believe).... Think. Again. Jan 17 #4
I have this same question. snot Jan 17 #5
No, you are not mistaken. The Amendment is dead hueymahl Jan 17 #6
Excellent point! Think. Again. Jan 17 #7
You don't know what you are talking about. It never was "dead." n/t valleyrogue Jan 19 #12
I hope you are correct hueymahl Jan 19 #23
You are totally wrong. See my post below. Time limits are not binding per 1982 USSC decision. n/t valleyrogue Jan 19 #13
The Tribe/Sullivan article is very understandable. Ratification process is a one-way ratchet Hekate Jan 19 #17
It's valid. People need to stop with the "time limit" nonsense. valleyrogue Jan 19 #11
You've said this repeatedly SickOfTheOnePct Jan 19 #15
The article by Tribe & Sullivan is very clear. Link here... Hekate Jan 19 #16
Yes I've read the Tribe article SickOfTheOnePct Jan 19 #19
You are correct, as I understand it. wnylib Jan 19 #21
Exactly SickOfTheOnePct Jan 19 #22
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The ERA Solidifies Women'...»Reply #11