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

SickOfTheOnePct

(8,710 posts)

15. You've said this repeatedly

Reply to valleyrogue (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 19, 2025, 12:17 AM

Jan 2025

about the 1982 case, NOW v. Idaho, and it is simply not true. SCOTUS never said the time limit wasn’t binding. In fact, they dismissed the case (which was as related to Idaho’s attempt to rescind their previous ratification) as moot because the 1982 ratification deadline had passed, so the rescinding issue was moot.

That’s the opposite of saying the deadline was sent valid - it’s an implicit acknowledgment that the deadline was binding.

The question is why do you continue to say something that is demonstrably untrue?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

Think. Again.

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 2025 OP

Will the courts support this amendment? Irish_Dem Jan 2025 #1

They should have zero say in what becomes an amendment. Otherwise they are our rulers. boston bean Jan 2025 #2

So the Archivist of the United States is the final authority on what gets certified and printed Seeking Serenity Jan 2025 #8

She cannot deny it. She has a duty at this time boston bean Jan 2025 #9

She doesn't see her duty that way Seeking Serenity Jan 2025 #10

No, the Archivist has no authority in the matter. Her function is to make it public... Hekate Jan 2025 #18

Should the courts get involved and overturn it - it will open the windows and doors to EVERYTHING being in play IMO. NoMoreRepugs Jan 2025 #3

The court cannot overturn a constitutional amendment. n/t valleyrogue Jan 2025 #14

True SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #20

I read that there was a deadline (1986 I believe).... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #4

I have this same question. snot Jan 2025 #5

No, you are not mistaken. The Amendment is dead hueymahl Jan 2025 #6

Excellent point! Think. Again. Jan 2025 #7

You don't know what you are talking about. It never was "dead." n/t valleyrogue Jan 2025 #12

I hope you are correct hueymahl Jan 2025 #23

You are totally wrong. See my post below. Time limits are not binding per 1982 USSC decision. n/t valleyrogue Jan 2025 #13

The Tribe/Sullivan article is very understandable. Ratification process is a one-way ratchet Hekate Jan 2025 #17

It's valid. People need to stop with the "time limit" nonsense. valleyrogue Jan 2025 #11

You've said this repeatedly SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #15

The article by Tribe & Sullivan is very clear. Link here... Hekate Jan 2025 #16

Yes I've read the Tribe article SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #19

You are correct, as I understand it. wnylib Jan 2025 #21

Exactly SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2025 #22