Today I'm affirming what I have long believed and what three-fourths of the states have ratified:
— President Biden (@POTUS) January 17, 2025
The 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex. pic.twitter.com/oZtS6Q89zG
COMMUNITY NOTED In a even more r-slurred than expected move, Biden say the ERA is ratified, Even though it isn't??? This seriously is r-slurred and beyond parody.
https://x.com/POTUS/status/1880271367569895830
Community Note by @Impassionata
The Constitution does not specify a time limit for states to ratify the ERA and 38 states have ratified it. The dramatic call is to assert that it is in fact the law of the land. Women will now be drafted.
Helpful [36] Not Helpful [9]- 149
- 108
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Its an attempt to trigger a legal fight. Doing it just before he leaves office is intentional, he wants the legal fight to be Trump's not his.
The constitution doesn't explicitly authorize congress to set a ratification deadline but in 1921 SCOTUS decided it implicitly does. Given how many self-professed textualists now sit on SCOTUS is a pretty good time to challenge it.
If SCOTUS reverse their decision in Dillon v. Gloss then it immediately comes in to effect, it hit the requisite number of ratifications 25 years ago.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Your
is doing some heavy lifting. Literally everyone who is not in the screeching harpy activist class has agreed the deadline was legitimate and expired before it was ratified
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
We have more history where amendments couldn't have a deadline then we do that they could. SCOTUS just invented it, there isn't even a hint of OI in the decision.
I'm not sure what good people think it would do in $CurrentYear. Federal law already includes everything it would include and the 14th is regularly used as a stand-in ERA.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
interesting, do you know if this would require women to register for selective service? or if there are any cases in the last 25yrs that would need to be reviewed because of this?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Decisions don't retroactively reverse previous decisions that are not in front of the court. People would have to go back to court and challenge laws based on the new amendment.
Probably not. SCOTUS rejected a review on 5th and 14th grounds unanimously in 2021.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Yes
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/04/14/registering-women-draft-wouldnt-be-big-departure-past/
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context