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

Showing Original Post only (View all)

boston bean

(36,604 posts)
Fri Jan 17, 2025, 04:32 PM Jan 17

The ERA Solidifies Women's Rights in the Constitution as the 28th Amendment [View all]

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 branches—not the courts. The ERA has strong legal arguments to overcome the procedural claims against it, which is why the American Bar Association—an independent, nonpartisan association of the nation’s lawyers—passed 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 sex—women, 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/

23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
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 18 #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 18 #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'...