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
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe ERA Solidifies Women's Rights in the Constitution as the 28th Amendment
Will the validity of the 28th Amendment be litigated?
Most Likely. The process of amending the Constitution is incredibly difficult. This is why it has only been previously amended 27 times. Throughout U.S. constitutional history, procedural questions and doubt around ratified amendments have been the norm and, over time, there have been concerns about the validity of many amendments that are now securely in place as accepted parts of the Constitution. Although the ERA has met all the requirements laid out in Article 5 to become an amendment, it is very likely its validity will be challenged in court. However, the Constitution affords no role in the ratification process to the Supreme Court. In a 1939 case, four justices in a key decision on another amendment strongly suggested that disputes over amendments were fundamentally political questions better left to the political branchesnot the courts. The ERA has strong legal arguments to overcome the procedural claims against it, which is why the American Bar Associationan independent, nonpartisan association of the nations lawyerspassed a resolution in August affirming that the ERA has been appropriately ratified as the 28th Amendment. Plus, there is no role in Article 5 whatsoever for the judicial branch in the amendment process. If the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes to remove a ratified amendment from the Constitution, such a move would be unconstitutional and run counter to long standing precedent.
Most Likely. The process of amending the Constitution is incredibly difficult. This is why it has only been previously amended 27 times. Throughout U.S. constitutional history, procedural questions and doubt around ratified amendments have been the norm and, over time, there have been concerns about the validity of many amendments that are now securely in place as accepted parts of the Constitution. Although the ERA has met all the requirements laid out in Article 5 to become an amendment, it is very likely its validity will be challenged in court. However, the Constitution affords no role in the ratification process to the Supreme Court. In a 1939 case, four justices in a key decision on another amendment strongly suggested that disputes over amendments were fundamentally political questions better left to the political branchesnot the courts. The ERA has strong legal arguments to overcome the procedural claims against it, which is why the American Bar Associationan independent, nonpartisan association of the nations lawyerspassed a resolution in August affirming that the ERA has been appropriately ratified as the 28th Amendment. Plus, there is no role in Article 5 whatsoever for the judicial branch in the amendment process. If the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes to remove a ratified amendment from the Constitution, such a move would be unconstitutional and run counter to long standing precedent.
Who does the 28th Amendment cover?
All people. The full text of the operative section of the 28th Amendment reads in full, Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. In nonlegal, terms this means it will cover anyone who experiences discrimination on the basis of sexwomen, men, and anyone on the gender spectrum, including trans people. It will also cover people who experience discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
All people. The full text of the operative section of the 28th Amendment reads in full, Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. In nonlegal, terms this means it will cover anyone who experiences discrimination on the basis of sexwomen, men, and anyone on the gender spectrum, including trans people. It will also cover people who experience discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-era-solidifies-womens-rights-in-the-constitution-as-the-28th-amendment/
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The ERA Solidifies Women's Rights in the Constitution as the 28th Amendment (Original Post)
boston bean
7 hrs ago
OP
They should have zero say in what becomes an amendment. Otherwise they are our rulers.
boston bean
7 hrs ago
#2
So the Archivist of the United States is the final authority on what gets certified and printed
Seeking Serenity
4 hrs ago
#8
Irish_Dem
(61,090 posts)1. Will the courts support this amendment?
Or will the SC use 16th century law to nullify it?
boston bean
(36,545 posts)2. They should have zero say in what becomes an amendment. Otherwise they are our rulers.
Seeking Serenity
(3,090 posts)8. So the Archivist of the United States is the final authority on what gets certified and printed
As part of the Constitution? Yes? No? Who is our "ruler" on these matters?
NoMoreRepugs
(10,739 posts)3. Should the courts get involved and overturn it - it will open the windows and doors to EVERYTHING being in play IMO.
Think. Again.
(19,923 posts)4. I read that there was a deadline (1986 I believe)....
...by which a certain amount of states had to have ratified it by, and that this deadline had past before the needed number of states did ratify it.
Am I mistaken?
snot
(10,910 posts)5. I have this same question.
.
hueymahl
(2,683 posts)6. No, you are not mistaken. The Amendment is dead
It I love that Biden is Trolling the repukes on his way out!
Think. Again.
(19,923 posts)7. Excellent point!