This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I believe the main argument is that the time limit was placed solely into the joint resolution raising the Amendment and not into the body of the amendment, thereby raising the question of whether Congress can set a deadline for ratifying the text of an Amendment to the Constitution that is not a part of the Amendment itself.
If states can’t rescind and ratification deadlines are irrelevant any dormant amendment could be brought back at any time with the original votes intact. I can’t see that happening.
Yes, but no states rescinded their vote and there were no time limits put on ratification. If that was the same case here there wouldn’t be any legal battles.
Again, the question is whether there actually was a time limit placed for ratification. There’s no question there was a time limit on the 20-22nd Amendments. The question is whether putting it in the proposal language (but not the Amendment) is effective, or whether that’s akin to a signing statement by a President since the bill merely proposes language to be sent to the legislatures of the states for ratification. And there is no constitutionally delineated process for rescinding ratification, which is why people wonder if that’s possible. And when that rescission is allowed.
Apparently there is a dormant amendment floating around out there that would re-legalize slavery. If there is no deadline and states can't rescind their votes, there is a mechanism in place by which we could get this ratified. The KKK and other groups need to mobilize their members to pick up and move into a single state where they have enough voters to take over its government, like a racist version of the Free State Project. They vote to ratify the Slavery Is Awesome Amendment. Then they move to another state and repeat the process, state by state. It would take a long time, but eventually they ram this through 38 legislatures. Obviously once the the pro-slavery people leave, each state would reelect sane legislators who would instantly try to rescind their state's ratification, but there are no takebacks so that won't work.
And you would hope that this would be the case for the ERA. Even if it is generally symbolic, there is no reason why there shouldn't be broad national consensus
A deadline can be set. It just has to be put into the amendment (or maybe not, we’ll see what the courts say.)
That is certainly the argument. And it definitely seems like Ginsburg has signaled the way she expects the court to rule.
I think it had to do with a counter-campaign launched after it went to the states.
No way! She was actually effective in her campaigns? I thought she was ultimately about as influential as Anita Bryant in hers.
She was very effective. She founded the STOP (Stop Taking Our Privileges) campaign. It's the genesis of most of the arguments people still use against the ERA - "we'll have to make women sign up for selective service!" "women's bathrooms won't be just for women anymore!" "women won't get their husbands' social security anymore if they die!"
I guess that just because I found her absurd that I should not have assumed that others did as well. memory is like that. I had forgotten how committed she was to this.
She started her campaign in late '72. 30 states had ratified by '73 and it was enjoying massive support. And then the bottom completely fell out.
Weird to me that my memory of her was as a more clownish, ineffective sidelight since I lived through those times. As I said, my memories are likely colored by my leanings. Something to guard against, no doubt.
I thought it had to do with the extension.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/s/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
