While the extension continued to be questioned constitutionally, it did not matter: Not a single new state was added during that extended period. (The Supreme Court later stayed that order but then declared the matter moot.) Freeman that Congress could not extend the ERA’s ratification deadline. In 1981, a federal district court ruled in Idaho v. So, Democrats and then-President Carter simply extended the deadline to June 30, 1982. However, Article V speaks of ratifications by state legislatures.ĭemocrats argued that states could not rescind their votes, even before the threshold number of states is reached. Kentucky adds a different wrinkle because its Democratic lieutenant governor vetoed the resolution rescinding the ratification when the governor was out of town. Not only that, but four states - Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky - rescinded their prior ratifications a fifth, South Dakota, set its ratification to expire if the ERA was not adopted by the 1979 deadline. But it fell short of that constitutional threshold. The deadline for ratification of the act was set for Maan ample seven years to secure the required approval by three-quarters of the states, or 38 states. Yet, before Ferriero has his Colin Clive moment of declaring “It’s moving … IT’S ALIVE,” he may have to check the vitals again. Moreover, many people today may see the equal or greater need for the protection of other groups viewed as discriminated against under current laws, calling for the inclusion of transgender individuals, atheists, undocumented persons, and others. Before and after the ERA was passed by Congress in 1972, a variety of state and federal laws have been passed to enforce prohibitions on discrimination on the basis for gender and enforce equality rules in pay, promotions and programs. The reason is that Democrats have good reason to doubt whether an ERA would be ratified today. Rather than submit a new ERA to the states, Democratic leaders want Ferriero to just declare it a done deal. This one makes the other efforts look restrained by comparison, however. These efforts have one thing in common: They avoid having the issues addressed by the voters directly or by the states. They have sought to negate state election laws and impose their own federal election standards on states. Democratic members and advocacy groups have pushed to pack the Supreme Court with an instant liberal majority. Such muscle plays have become common in the last two years. And they are calling on President Biden to support this dubious move toward amendments by archival acclamation. However, these Democrats insist that a unilateral decision from Ferriero declaring it ratified would mean it is ratified … at least until some courts say otherwise. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, want Ferriero to simply publish the ERA in the Federal Register as a ratified amendment. He also may be the man who unilaterally declares the long-dead Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) not just alive but now part of our Constitution as the 28th Amendment.ĭemocratic leaders like Rep. Who is David Ferriero, you ask? He is 10th Archivist of the United States. But soon, if Democrats in Congress have their way, they will add one more: David Ferriero. Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin: The names of great constitutional figures are etched in the minds of every schoolchild.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |