Biden Says Equal Rights Amendment Is 'Law of the Land'

[Tennessee Hillbilly]

Source: Political Wire

“President Biden moved to enshrine the Equal Rights Amendment in the Constitution, declaring that the measure to prohibit sex-based discrimination had cleared the necessary hurdles to go into effect after a half-century of debate,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

“The announcement came just days before Biden is set to surrender power to President-elect Donald Trump, and it was certain to face legal challenges and fierce objections from Republicans.”



Read more: https://politicalwire.com/2025/01/17/biden-says-equal-rights-amendment-is-law-of-the-land/

---

Wall Street Journal link:
https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/biden-equal-rights-amendment-constitution-2b990992?st=CCXYEq

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Will ERA protect the rights of Trans?

[DeepWinter]

21. I doubt it

It's very specifically written "male" "female". There are already Trans activists on TicTok and IG pushing back against ERA because of that.

It's going nowhere though. His statement was a statement of opinion. Hypothetically he does an Executive order. Executive orders are the weakest way to get something done. The next President coming in can make their own Executive order overturning it on day 1.

[Voltaire2]

2. The SCROTUS will nullify this in about 3 days. nt.

[FBaggins]

4. Nothing to nullify at this point

It’s just a statement of belief

[Polybius]

17. And 9-0 at that

[BumRushDaShow]

3. Here is the STATEMENT

The White House

January 17, 2025

Statement from President Joe Biden on the Equal Rights Amendment

Home Briefing Room Statements and Releases


I have supported the Equal Rights Amendment for more than 50 years, and I have long been clear that no one should be discriminated against based on their sex. We, as a nation, must affirm and protect women’s full equality once and for all.

On January 27, 2020, the Commonwealth of Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. The American Bar Association (ABA) has recognized that the Equal Rights Amendment has cleared all necessary hurdles to be formally added to the Constitution as the 28th Amendment. I agree with the ABA and with leading legal constitutional scholars that the Equal Rights Amendment has become part of our Constitution.

It is long past time to recognize the will of the American people. In keeping with my oath and duty to Constitution and country, I affirm what I believe and what three-fourths of the states have ratified: the 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex.

###

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. Statement of President Joe Biden on the Equal Rights Amendment

Link to tweet

[MayReasonRule]

6. Well Done Joe!!!

[SCantiGOP]

7. Sadly,

the first court to hear this will invalidate it.

[DavidDvorkin]

8. Yes.

[pnwmom]

9. On what basis? There's no time limit in the Constitution.

The time limit itself was unconstitutional.

[GB_RN]

11. Don't Think That's Been Litigated.

As best I can recall, there is no legal precedence. You can be certain, that if I’m correct in that, the GOPQ-balls (Q-We Hate Women) will sue. I can then see The Corrupt Six saying the time limit set by Congress is valid and therefore, the amendment cannot be recognized.

[MichMan]

12. Every amendment passed since prohibition had a deadline

Were they all unconstitutional?

[Polybius]

15. The time limit itself was unconstitutional, then the whole Amendment might be

Also, why do you oppose states rescinding?

[pnwmom]

26. Where in the Constitution does it say a state's approval can be rescinded? nt

[madville]

29. Where does it say it can't?

There’s nothing that says it can or can’t be rescinded so there’s nothing definitive with that argument.

[Polybius]

33. The same page that it says that they can't n/t

[MichMan]

28. It doesn't prohibit one either

A deadline has already been deemed constitutional by the SC

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/256/368/

[Igel]

31. Congress can make its own rules for its own conduct.

That's in the Constitution.

They made the rule for ratification--they included a deadline.

There's no role for the President in adopting a constitutional amendment, by the way.

[Polybius]

24. I wouldn't say sadly, because it might be 9-0

Why can't states rescind before an Amendment is ratified?

[Jose Garcia]

10. If it has been the 'Law of the Land' for almost five years now, why hasn't anyone filed a lawsuit citing it?

[calimary]

13. Do it, Joe! One last home run!

Just DO IT.

[CTyankee]

19. I think Biden is taunting Trump who will bear the fault if he wipes it out.

there's a whole new generation of women who may not be political now but sure would be if the Trump administration just cancelled their rights. It was the right thing to do morally and politically. Thank you, President Biden!

[Igel]

32. Cite Article IV of the Consitution.

It gives the President the authority to make this kind of proclamation!


Oh, wait, there is no Article IV. And Congress sets its own rules ... per the Constitution.

Look, I'm not a lawyer but at least I've taught high school civics, which goes through the Constitution line by line, then each of the amendments then significant SCOTUS (and other) cases from the 1790s to the 1980s.

But hey, this is Texas, I'm sure other states do a much better job with their required civics/government class for seniors.

[republianmushroom]

14. Huh, I also though Roe vs Wade was also 'Law of the Land'.

Silly, me.

[thesquanderer]

18. It was "settled law," until it wasn't. (n/t)

[BComplex]

23. That's what the lying supreme court justices, appointed by the most notorious liar in history, said UNDER OATH.

THEY LIED. Perjury. It's called perjury and it's not only a basis to impeach them, but also to throw them in jail.

[thesquanderer]

25. They didn't lie. They danced around the question with non-answers.

It's as if I were to ask you, "Hey B, would you consider murdering someone?" And you answer "I believe murder is illegal." Your answer would be true, and would imply that you wouldn't do it, but it doesn't actually answer the question. Similarly, these people were asked things like whether they agreed with how Roe vs Wade was decided, and they would answer talking about its status as settled law, established precedent, etc. but never actually saying that they agreed with the decision, and never saying that they would refuse to consider a challenge to it. They were focussed not on answering the question, but on how to avoid answering it.

Here's a good article on it. No direct lies, just a lot of weasel words and misdirection.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

[BComplex]

34. I understand that. But they knew what they were being asked. Playing verbal gymnastics, under oath,

knowing the ultimate deceit they are holding in their hearts, should be the BIGGEST disqualifying offense they could commit, to sit on the highest court in the land IMHO.

[Polybius]

16. So how come it's not on Wiki yet?

List of amendments to the Constitution of the United States

[intrepidity]

20. Not enough fanfare

Biden needs to make a big gold-framed document "28th Amendment" and offer signed copies to the first 10,000 buyers of their copy for the low, low price of $399.49 and make that shit go viral!

*That's* how stuff gets done these days!

[sakabatou]

22. That's what they said about Roe...

[madville]

30. It's a nice gesture

This declaration won’t change anything for several established reasons, but it at least gets the conversation back out there.