✪ Valid Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution is a Matter of Contention ✪

DreamRyderX

Active member
..

The never-ending fight over
whether to include the ERA in the Constitution


Source: WASHINGTON POST
As of last week, the Constitution was supposed to include the Equal Rights Amendment saying women have equal rights as men — but a 40-year-old deadline stands in its way.

As the New York Times’s Jesse Wegman reported, the national archivist is refusing to add a 28th Amendment to the Constitution, all because the deadline for states to ratify it expired decades ago.

Three-fourths of the states have ratified the ERA, which meets the constitutional requirements for adding to the Constitution. But a few ratified it after a deadline imposed by Congress, which could leave ERA supporters back at square one............
IMHO I can't see why the Amendment can't be added, being there is such a broad consensus regarding it.

Should the legislated deadline for ratification, 40 years past, be simply disregarded?

Should the Amendment process re-start from square one?

Should the United States Supreme Court get involved, & if so why?

What say you?


PS......if you are not familiar with the ERA Amendment as proposed, follow this link for a history of the ERA Amendment.......
 
Last edited:

Squire

Active member
Panther is just embarrassed that the US has not adopted the ERA.

Uncle Sam can't point the finger at other international violators when its fingers can't write the words required by the ERA.
 

SethBullock

Captain Bullock
Staff member
@DreamRyderX I don't think the law should be disregarded, but why can't the legislation be rescinded by Congress while replacing it with new legislation removing the deadline?
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
@DreamRyderX I don't think the law should be disregarded, but why can't the legislation be rescinded by Congress while replacing it with new legislation removing the deadline?
@SethBullock

Actually, as it stands it doesn't need to be rescinded, it's already well past due & therefore dead....not able to be revived.

See: The 1972 Equal Rights Amendment Can No Longer Be Ratified—Because It No Longer Exists



IMHO.......With the consensus the ERA seemingly has, all they (Congress) would need to do is propose a new identical Amendment without a deadline as you suggest, send it through the process passing it out of both the House & Senate, & it would probably pass all the Article V criteria within a year of being sent to the States for ratification.

That said, in this contentious day & age, politically, anything can happen......
 
Last edited:

DreamRyderX

Active member
Didn't the 27th Amendment take 200 years to ratify?
Yes.......well it actually took 203 years, & the primary reason it was still valid before the States for ratification for all that time was simply due to the fact that Congress never put a deadline on it's ratification.

See how the absence of a ratification deadline enabled it to remain before the States, & would still be before the States today if it wasn't ratified when it was back in 1992.
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Yes.......well it actually took 203 years, & the primary reason it was still valid before the States for ratification for all that time was simply due to the fact that Congress never put a deadline on it's ratification.

See how the absence of a ratification deadline enabled it to remain before the States, & would still be before the States today if it wasn't ratified when it was back in 1992.
I read your article, and I am still confused. The 27th Amendment wasn't ratified because it couldn't get the required numbers necessary to become ratified. So, it laid dormant for over 200 years. Until it could get the numbers. But the 28th Amendment was passed by a 2/3rds majority vote in both houses, and passed in 2/3rds of the State legislatures in 38 states. Isn't this enough to satisfy all the requirements for ratification? Or, is a 7 year technicality more important than the amendment requirements, or the wishes of the people??
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
.......but the 28th Amendment was passed by a 2/3rds majority vote in both houses, and passed in 2/3rds of the State legislatures in 38 states. Isn't this enough to satisfy all the requirements for ratification? .........
The 27th Amendment didn't have a deadline, whereas the so called '28th Amendment' didn't get the Article V requisites in time to beat its deadline......it withered on the vine, & was dead.......once the deadline had passed, the Amendment no longer existed...........therefore the final States didn't have a live/existing Amendment to vote on.........you need to get over the fact that it will never make it into the US Constitution until it's done correctly.........all the "i"s must be dotted, & all the "t"s must be crossed.....

See: https://tinyurl.com/yd94temr

Now S&S say what you will, Congress will still have to re-start the ratification process from square one, no matter what............that is, if the American People still want it......& if they can get the US House's & US Senate's 2/3rds majority votes to determine if it will go to the States.............they will also need approval of 3/4ers of the 50 United States.....38 States, before any deadline passes this time.

As I stated earlier, IMHO, if there is such a broad consensus as you say there seems to be, I don't see why it can't be accomplished quickly....within a couple of years or so....but in this contentious political climate, one can never tell.....
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Or, is a 7 year technicality more important than the amendment requirements, or the wishes of the people??
The above is the question I asked? I know how the process works. A time limit is not even mentioned in Art. V. There were no time limits on the first 19 amendments. So let me asked again. Do you think that getting a 2/3rds majority vote in both houses of congress, and the approval of 3/4ths of the states legislatures, is not enough for an amendment to become ratified?? Saying that, If this is true, than this should have happened.., is just rationalizing. Do you personally think that this arbitrary 7 year proposal by congress, should be more important than the wises of the people? Regardless of how long it takes?

.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
What I think, or you think, means nothing.

The Amendment was no longer valid for consideration one moment after the deadline....a point in time that if not successfully met means failure to any Amendment or agreement associated with it, be it signed in blood by the entire Congress, or it be a mere technicality which you, & your ilk, find inconvenient because it wasn't timely met.

★ As the Congressional Research Service has concluded, the 1972 ERA formally died when its ratification deadline passed on June 30, 1982.

★ Congress has no role in determining when a proposed amendment has been ratified, and the states cannot ratify an amendment after its deadline has passed.

★ The ERA can become part of the Constitution only if it is again proposed and is ratified by three-fourths of the states while it is properly pending.
That you suggest it should be ignored, as if the deadline didn't exist, in order for the ERA to have full force of law, IMHO suggests to everyone what kind of American you probably are.....a Poor excuse for one, & a Piss Poor American at that, if you are even an American at all.........

If the ERA were ratified properly, according to the agreement which passed it through Congress, & sent it on to the States for consideration, it would be Law today, & it would be defended & affirmed in my Countries most Sacred Document, the American People's U.S. Constitution, as are all the other amendments duly ratified prior.

So that said, say what you will, Congress will still have to re-start the ratification process from square one..........that is, if the American People still want it......& if they can get the US House's & US Senate's 2/3rds majority votes to determine if it will go to the States.............where it will need approval of 3/4ers of the 50 United States.....38 States, before any deadline passes this time.
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
What I think, or you think, means nothing.

The Amendment was no longer valid for consideration one moment after the deadline....a point in time that if not successfully met means failure to any Amendment or agreement associated with it, be it signed in blood by the entire Congress, or it be a mere technicality which you, & your ilk, find inconvenient because it wasn't timely met.



That you suggest it should be ignored, as if the deadline didn't exist, in order for the ERA to have full force of law, IMHO suggests to everyone what kind of American you probably are.....a Poor excuse for one, & a Piss Poor American at that, if you are even an American at all.........

If the ERA were ratified properly, according to the agreement which passed it through Congress, & sent it on to the States for consideration, it would be Law today, & it would be defended & affirmed in my Countries most Sacred Document, the American People's U.S. Constitution, as are all the other amendments duly ratified prior.

So that said, say what you will, Congress will still have to re-start the ratification process from square one..........that is, if the American People still want it......& if they can get the US House's & US Senate's 2/3rds majority votes to determine if it will go to the States.............where it will need approval of 3/4ers of the 50 United States.....38 States, before any deadline passes this time.

Look, I get it. The Amendment can't be certified because of the 7 year limitation. And therefore can't be ratified. And, yes, I do think that our founding fathers did not want any time constraints on the ratification process.

My question was only asking for your opinion, NOT whether your opinion is meaningless or not. If you really believe that our founding fathers thought that time limitations, were more important than the will of the people, then why weren't these limitations implicit, and added to the original article?

Do you think that any proposed amendments that is passed by Congress and the States(in line with the Article V), should be ratified regardless of how long it takes? Do the limitations represent the will of the people, or do the majority consensus represent the will of people?? You sound like you just hate this amendment.

That you suggest it should be ignored, as if the deadline didn't exist, in order for the ERA to have full force of law, IMHO suggests to everyone what kind of American you probably are.....a Poor excuse for one, & a Piss Poor American at that, if you are even an American at all.........
Wow! Were these insults really necessary? I was only asking for your opinion and insight. I can't change this time limitation to the ratification process. And, even if I did suggest that this limitation should be ignored, doesn't make me a BAD, PISS-POOR, OR POOR EXCUSE FOR AN AMERICAN! Without GOOD AMERICANS like me, there would still be slavery, institutionalized racism, blatant discrimination, no equal rights and opportunities for all, etc., in America. Without us GOOD AMERICANS, there would only be people like you left. I sincerely hope that this is NOT how other GOOD AMERICANS respond to a question?? Also, no one chooses their country of birth. It has nothing to do with our moral character. There are many people who would call being a GOOD AMERICAN, oxymoronic.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
Look, I get it. The Amendment can't be certified because of the 7 year limitation. And therefore can't be ratified. And, yes, I do think that our founding fathers did not want any time constraints on the ratification process.
.........why weren't these limitations implicit, and added to the original article?
Well, the Founding Fathers knew that their Constitution was not perfect, & that from time to time....over time.....it would be necessary for changes to be made to it. They specifically chose the process to be very difficult so that changes would not be easily made to reflect whims & fancies like the latest ever changing fashions. If the Constitution were to be changed, it would need to have a very broad consensus in both Congress & among the American People. Therefore, I believe having a reasonable time limitation placed upon ratification, would not be inconsistent, based on The Founding Father's known desire to make the process difficult to accomplish.

Why then would they not put such a criteria in Article V?


Two possible reasons come to mind:

1. - They simply didn't think of it, but if they weren't under suchr pressure to get the Constitution itself ratified, they might have though of it.....it would have been reasonably consistent if they had though.

2. - They were giving such power to the Congress to make laws for America, & make rules on how the government needed to function, that if in the future, if additional requisites were needed, Congress would have the power to do so.

Congress obviously found a need, & started employing time limitations with virtually every Constitutional Amendment, usually either within the Amendment's preface introducing the Amendment or within the Amendment's text itself. Time Limitations have become the Rule rather than an Exception.


Do you think that any proposed amendments that is passed by Congress and the States(in line with the Article V), should be ratified regardless of how long it takes?
No, the time limits placed with or in the Amendment were probably intentional....an intentional conditional part of the Amendment, & could always have been removed any time prior to passage in Congress. Why they weren't removed was most probably because no one either thought it was a problem, or more probably it may have been inserted out of necessity......to insure passage.


Do the limitations represent the will of the people, or do the majority consensus represent the will of people?? You sound like you just hate this amendment.
No.....Not at all.......for the most part I thought it was a good thing......

To unquestionably ensure equal treatment under American Law, regardless of whether one was male or one was female, is definitely a good thing!

The limitations themselves would have had nothing to do with whether the Amendment would pass in the States or not.......if anything, it would have instilled a sense of urgency in passing it timely. That it took so long to even get close, before the first extension, says the public consensus though great, was probably weaker Country Wide than I thought. IMHO.....Because of that alone, the Amendment Process for the ERA was unsuccessful.


Wow! Were these insults really necessary? I was only asking for your opinion and insight. I can't change this time limitation to the ratification process.
S&S, in afterthought, yes they were totally unneccesary, & out of line. After I tried to walk a mile in your shoes after reading what I wrote, I agree.....I would feel the same as you probably did.....they were totally uncalled for, & for that I apologize.


Resorting to calling you out, simply because we differed in opinion......was very wrong on my part. I make no excuses, for none exist...... Even though I may disagree with some of your opinions, I assure you I respect your right to have them........

 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Well, the Founding Fathers knew that their Constitution was not perfect, & that from time to time....over time.....it would be necessary for changes to be made to it. They specifically chose the process to be very difficult so that changes would not be easily made to reflect whims & fancies like the latest ever changing fashions. If the Constitution were to be changed, it would need to have a very broad consensus in both Congress & among the American People. Therefore, I believe having a reasonable time limitation placed upon ratification, would not be inconsistent, based on The Founding Father's known desire to make the process difficult to accomplish.
I agree that our founding fathers wanted a flexible and non-static constitution. They wanted a Constitution that could adapt to the country's changes in times and needs. But since they didn't know what these changes and needs would be, they left it up to the people to decide what these changes would be. Article V of the Constitution was to provide a process in which the people could make changes to the Constitution.

Our founding fathers saw no need to include a time restrictions to that process. The only requirement they saw, was that 2/3rds of both houses in Congress, and 3/4 of all State legislatures all agreed. Which in itself is certainly no easy feat. After 1917, for some reason a time restriction seemed necessary, to be added the amendment ratification process. Why?? What does any time restriction have to do with the people's consensus of belief? If the people want donut vendors in every major city, then what is it that necessitates a time-restriction?

S&S, in afterthought, yes they were, & after I tried to walk a mile in your shoes after reading what I wrote, I agree.....I would feel the same.....they were uncalled for, & for that I apologize.


Resorting to calling you out, simply because we differed in opinion......was very wrong on my part. I make no excuses, for none exist...... Even though I may disagree with some of your opinions, I assure you I respect your right to have them........
Thank you, and no biggy. Since joining this forum, my shoulders have become very strong. At least I know that you are an honest man, who will accept responsibility for his own action. Without mirroring, deflecting, or making juvenile excuses. You clearly do have more depth of character than I thought. Thank you for opening my eyes before misjudging you.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
......Thank you, and no biggy. Since joining this forum, my shoulders have become very strong. At least I know that you are an honest man, who will accept responsibility for his own action. Without mirroring, deflecting, or making juvenile excuses. You clearly do have more depth of character than I thought. Thank you for opening my eyes before misjudging you.
 
Top