You've probably heard that there's been a renewed push for the states to ratify the "Equal Rights Amendment" or "ERA." Congress passed the ERA in 1972, which guarantees that the "equality of rights under the law" cannot be "denied or abridged" based on sex.
While the intent may sound benign enough, states soon realized that the language would open a constitutional can of worms. The ERA failed to gain ratification by 38 states by the 1979 deadline that had Congress established, and that should have been the end of the story.
But now activists are trying to resurrect the failed amendment. They claim that they're only one state away from ratifying it, despite court decisions to the contrary. As Prof. Rob Natelson explained in a recent op-ed, their arguments are flawed at best -- and "constitutional gibberish" at worst:
And that’s where matters rested until activists invented their renewed “ratification” campaign. Of course, their campaign requires them to pretend the ERA isn’t dead, so they claim:
The first assertion contradicts settled Supreme Court authority. The second disregards settled practice, the resolution’s wording, and the trend of modern court decisions.
- That Congress’s deadlines for ratification are ineffective and the ERA lasts forever;
- That, assuming deadlines to be effective, deadlines must be in the body of the amendment rather than (as in the ERA) in the resolution’s introduction;
- That Congress may extend deadlines retroactively;
- That every state ratification counts, no matter how late; but
- That no state rescission counts, no matter how timely.
The third—that Congress may create a new retroactive deadline—violates all constitutional understanding. As the Office of Legal Services pointed out, it’s like saying that if the president vetoes a bill in 1980 and Congress fails to override it, then Congress may try to override it again 40 years later.
The fourth assertion—that we must count ratifications passed after the deadline—disregards the Supreme Court ruling that Congress may impose a deadline.
The fifth—that rescissions don’t count—is flawed because (1) it’s based on non-binding court language since widely repudiated, (2) it contradicts universal legislative practice, (3) it contradicts the historical practice on which the Constitution’s amendment process was based, and (4) it contradicts a federal court decision directly on point.
The attention given to the ERA by the mainstream media far outweighs its importance or necessity in American life. Men and women are already protected equally under the law, and the amendment's vague phraseology means it could be warped and misused by the courts.
There's a much larger constitutional movement that the media is ignoring, but it has the potential to actually change our country for the better.
Millions of Americans have voiced their support for an Article V Convention of States to limit the power of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints on Congress, and limits terms of office for federal officials.
Congress won't pass the kinds of amendments our country truly needs. It's up to the states and the people, and we can do it with an Article V Convention of States.
Sign the petition below to show your support!
