Biden says Equal Rights Amendment is ratified, kicking off expected legal battle as he pushes through final executive actions

www.cnn.com Biden says Equal Rights Amendment is ratified, kicking off expected legal battle as he pushes through final executive actions | CNN Politics

President Joe Biden announced a major opinion Friday that the Equal Rights Amendment is ratified, enshrining its protections into the Constitution, a last-minute move that some believe could pave the way to bolstering reproductive rights.

Biden says Equal Rights Amendment is ratified, kicking off expected legal battle as he pushes through final executive actions | CNN Politics

News @lemmy.world

jeffw @lemmy.world

2w ago

Biden says Equal Rights Amendment is ratified, kicking off expected legal battle as he pushes through final executive actions

www.cnn.com /2025/01/17/politics/joe-biden-equal-right-amendment/index.html

125 11

12 comments

As nice as this would be, it's as ridiculous as Trump claiming he can declassify documents just by thinking about it. No, you have to go through approved processes.
- it’s as ridiculous as Trump claiming he can declassify documents just by thinking about it
  Maybe that’s the object—to put Trump and other Republicans on record as saying this is an invalid procedure.
  
  I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s another impotent liberal “gotcha”
  
  Well that does sound like the kind of naive mindset Democrats might have. Thinking that if they establish guidelines and rules Republicans will abide by them. Thinking that they won't just completely 180 whenever it's convenient.

A nice long article. After reading it all the way through, I still have no idea what, apart from 38 state ratifications, is needed to publish a new amendment, and why the 28th wasn't written into the constitution after the 38th state ratified it in 2020.
- There’s a time limit to get it ratified. While I am all for the ERA, this will not survive any legal prodding.
- Because there's a time limit on it. It had to have been ratified in a certain amount of time.
  
  It's actually an open legal question. Actual legal scholars have argued both ways on it. Yes, there is was a deadline in the act Congress passed to send the amendment out for ratification. But the key is that they didn't include that deadline language in the text of the amendment itself. Some other amendments have language in the text of the amendment that places a deadline on ratification. That is the crucial difference here.
  A good argument can be made that Congress can only propose an amendment or not. They can't attach a bunch of extra provisos to the amendment process. Congress can't confirm a justice to the court and apply a bunch of conditions to that confirmation. If they want to have a time limit on the ratification of the amendment, the time limit should be in the actual text of the amendment itself.
  
  Yes, but precedent and Supreme Court rulings exist for Congress's power to extend the time limit, and ultimately just decide whether an amendment is still valid.

12 comments