Comments on: The Equal Rights Amendment expired. Can it be revived?

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Sat, 01 Feb 2020 15:28:16 +0000

In reply to Hugo S Cunningham. Yes. And at that point the political question abstention doctrine, which at present cuts against ERA advocates, will cut in their favor, unless the Supreme Court has resolved the issue in the mean time.

By: Hugo S Cunningham

Hugo S Cunningham — Sat, 01 Feb 2020 14:40:14 +0000

If a Democrat wins in 2020, we can expect a new round of lawsuits when he orders his archivist to certify the ERA.

By: SPO

SPO — Fri, 31 Jan 2020 15:53:46 +0000

One would think that some sort of humility would counsel against this litigation. The Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. Thus, its amendment should be completely free from doubt. There is some trickery to get to 38, and that should be enough to say no to the attempt.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Fri, 31 Jan 2020 10:42:40 +0000

In reply to gasman. What would an equal rights amendment look like written today? Would it include transgender rights? All 60(?) proposed genders? I have a feeling that it would not stand the test of time very well. 10 years from now the attitudes would have changed again.

By: Timothy E. Harris

Timothy E. Harris — Thu, 30 Jan 2020 20:59:28 +0000

In reply to Walter Olson.

Using the mechanisms of the Law to try to subvert Rule of law.
And if the ERA bill doesn’t mean what it says in the text, how can it possibly be relevant to enact it?
The court could (and should) dismiss this suit on multiple grounds.

By: MattS

MattS — Thu, 30 Jan 2020 20:11:53 +0000

In reply to gasman. It's highly unlikely that you could get a fresh ERA bill passed out of the current congress.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Thu, 30 Jan 2020 16:17:49 +0000

And now three state attorneys general (Virginia, Illinois, Nevada) have sued the Archivist in an attempt to force recognition of the amendment as validly ratified:

https://apnews.com/4913397a57f671c62989a1a5ec10df17

By: gasman

gasman — Thu, 30 Jan 2020 16:12:21 +0000

The seven year clock was part of the proposal sent to the states. And that is exactly what 35 states ratified, an act that had an explicit time limit attached.
Rather than try and drag this amendment across the finish line to have it subsequently argued for another decade in the courts whether it is valid, just have another shot at it. It can hardly be said that the 1972 amendment represents the will of any one group of people, as more than 2/3 of the people of this country were not yet born at that time.

A clean ratification by 38 states in under seven years (or whatever time period the new article would attach) would be much more meaningful both from a legal perspective, and also a cultural and societal perspective.