Gillibrand now demanding that long-dead ERA be added to Constitution
In the time frame after an election, and before a new Congress and president take office, some odd agendas appear in Washington.
None is odder than the campaign this year by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand to demand that the long-dead Equal Rights Amendment NOW be certified as part of the Constitution.
Even though it has failed, and has been declared dead over and over.
Earlier today, the national archivist preemptively stated that she would not legally certify the Equal Rights Amendment as part of the Constitution.
By taking this unprecedented step, she is wrongfully inserting herself into a clear constitutional process, though her role is…
— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) December 18, 2024
For the ratification of amendments to the Constitution, at least 38 states must adopt the proposal.
During the time allowed for the ERA to be ratified, 35 states did adopt it. But that was not enough, even after Congress extended the allowed time.
But decades after the deadline and second deadline, several more states did vote for it, and promoters now are saying that those votes make it part of the Constitution.
They ignore the fact, however, that if votes after the deadline count, the ERA still lacks support because during that same time period, five states that had ratified it reversed their vote.
Gillibrand blasted the national archivist for explaining the facts.
“Earlier today, the national archivist preemptively stated that she would not legally certify the Equal Rights Amendment as part of the Constitution. By taking this unprecedented step, she is wrongfully inserting herself into a clear constitutional process, though her role is purely ministerial. Our argument has the support of legal experts, twenty-three attorneys general, the League of Women Voters, and the American Bar Association. I remain undaunted, and will continue to urge President Biden to direct the archivist to certify and publish the ERA and codify equality in the Constitution.”
Even readers on social media, however, could explain her problem, adding, “While the ERA has been ratified by 38 states, it had only been ratified by 35 before expiration of the ratification deadline in 1982. Lawmakers in 5 states have since voted to rescind their earlier approvals and the DOJ has upheld that the ratification period had ended. ”
(1) It did not pass by the deadline.
(2) Five states rescinded their support.
(3) You already know this.
(4) You took an oath to defend the Constitution.
(5) You are actively attacking it.
(6) You are a disgrace to the senate.
— Utah Conservative (@coninutah) December 18, 2024
The Gateway Pundit said the proposed amendment would have said, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”
It failed to meet its ratification requirements by the first deadline in 1972, and again in 1982.
Archivist of the United States Dr. Colleen Shogan and Deputy Archivist William J. Bosanko explained in their statement, “As Archivist and Deputy Archivist of the United States, it is our responsibility to uphold the integrity of the constitutional amendment process and ensure that changes to the Constitution are carried out in accordance with the law. At this time, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) cannot be certified as part of the Constitution due to established legal, judicial, and procedural decisions.
“In 2020 and again in 2022, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice affirmed that the ratification deadline established by Congress for the ERA is valid and enforceable. The OLC concluded that extending or removing the deadline requires new action by Congress or the courts. Court decisions at both the District and Circuit levels have affirmed that the ratification deadlines established by Congress for the ERA are valid. Therefore, the Archivist of the United States cannot legally publish the Equal Rights Amendment. As the leaders of the National Archives, we will abide by these legal precedents and support the constitutional framework in which we operate.”
In 2020, Democrat lawmakers in Virginia claimed they ratified the ERA, making their state the 38th to ratify.
Not quite, explained a legal opinion from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.
“Congress has constitutional authority to impose a deadline for ratifying a proposed constitutional amendment. It exercised this authority when proposing the Equal Rights Amendment and, because three-fourths of the state legislatures did not ratify before the deadline that Congress imposed, the Equal Rights Amendment has failed of adoption and is no longer pending before the states,” it said.
“Accordingly, even if one or more state legislatures were to ratify the proposed amendment it would not become part of the Constitution and the archivist could not certify its adoption.”
The opinion said Congress “may not revive a proposed amendment after a deadline for its ratification has expired.”
“Should congress wish to propose the amendment anew, it may do so through the same procedures required to propose an amendment in the first instance, consistent with Article V of the Constitution.”
The concept first was proposed in the U.S. House in 1923, but it didn’t gain congressional action until the 1970s. But that legislation included a ratification deadline, which was extended once.
Recently, three states sued to keep the ERA corpse in its grave.
AP reported South Dakota, Louisiana and Alabama filed a federal case to block the ERA should there be support.
South Dakota’s attorney general at the time, Jason Raynsborg, explained: “The South Dakota Legislature ratified the ERA in 1973, but in 1979 passed Senate Joint Resolution 2 which required the ERA be ratified in the original time limit set by Congress or be rescinded. Because thirty-eight states failed to ratify the amendment by [the deadline], the South Dakota Legislature rescinded its ratification of the ERA.”
Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky and South Dakota, after first adopting it, later reversed their decisions and withdrew their adoptions.