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

General Discussion

Hekate

(96,614 posts)

18. No, the Archivist has no authority in the matter. Her function is to make it public...

Reply to Seeking Serenity (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 19, 2025, 06:58 AM

Jan 19

As for the Archivist, her function is “ministerial” — that is, regardless of her opinion, her function is to “publish” the material, that is, to make it public. Just like the Vice President’s function with the ratification of Electoral College votes: there is no power, implied or otherwise, to hold up or change anything.

Please read this in full — it is not very long:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219915969

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

23 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The ERA Solidifies Women's Rights in the Constitution as the 28th Amendment [View all] boston bean Jan 17 OP

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