The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and its ratification deadline have become subjects of renewed debate in recent years, particularly as several states have attempted to ratify the amendment decades after its original deadline.
With all respect, I believe you are overlooking an important point. The wording of a resolution to consider the ERA is not as important as the wording of the proposed Amendment itself. It's unfortunate that the seven year mention appears in the resolution, because it appears that is where the opponents of the ERA are desperately hanging their reasoning to not provide the equal rights for all people without regard to sex. Nothing in the Amendment itself, as you observed, has such a time limitation, just a mention of a two year period between states' ratification and effectiveness. So the relatively recent action of Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia is not a factor to inhibit ratification. The American Bar Association (ABA) itself has something to say about any time limit to ratification saying that Article V of the Constitution includes no time limit of any sort. They go on to say that Congress lacks the power to amend the Constitution by adding a third requirement (time limitation) in addition to the two requirements already defined in Article V. And the only way a time limitation could be added would be by a NEW change to Article V that would have to go before Congress and the states anew. In the light of that, on August 6, 2024, the ABA pronounced that since Virginia voted to ratify the ERA in January, 2020, the nearly 600 member House of Delegates of the ABA adopted Resolution 601 that essentially says that, "as of January 27, 2020, the ERA automatically and instantaneously became the 28th Amendment to the Constitution." I was a small participant working with Sarah Weddington, my representative when I lived in Austin, in demonstrating for the ratification of the ERA in Texas. We were successful in that work despite the appearance of Phyllis Schafly and other Birch Society members in fighting against the ERA at the time. I was even privileged to be present on the floor (not in the gallery) during much of the proceedings for ratification next to Ms. Weddington's desk. There's nothing dangerous in the wording of the ERA. All we had to do was to convince Texans that their daughters would not be drafted to join the armed forces and fight on the front lines in Vietnam. That was the top argument by the Birch Society all bundled up with the tradition of keeping the girls in the kitchen and out of the board rooms. All in all, the ERA is simple and straightforward. It deserves ratification. Like the 15th Amendment, it's only fair.
First, thank you for reading. I understand why you have that opinion. This is why the history of the 18th amendment is so critical, it introduced a precedent which did not previously exist in the idea of limitations on when ratification could take place. The 27th Amendment was passed back in 1789 and was not ratified until 1992! 202-and-a-half years later. That’s wild. Before that the average time from Congressional vote to ratification was somewhere around four years. Interestingly, there are still four amendments outstanding that could be ratified, the most recent one is 88 years old, the oldest one goes back to 1789 as well, and they could still be ratified because there was no time limit.
The ERA ratification resolution language is indeed the problem, but it is empowered because of the way SCOTUS interpreted the power of Congressional intention, which was the correct ruling. The ABA is wrong in its current understanding of the historical evolution of parliamentary/Congressional power to legislate reasons and conditions. It is letting its desired outcome get in the way of the hard reality of having to start over, and I get that it is a tough position to be in if you really want that Amendment. But tossing the resolution does not solve the matter.
If for example the resolution was invalid then the proposed amendment presenting it to the states was also invalid because it could be argued that the 2/3s majority reached was based upon the specific wording used and the public assertion of such power represented a super-majority consensus of Congress, and if SCOTUS threw out the resolution it would be changing the conditions that Congress agreed to when it sent it to the states. The whole thing would be struck out. The resolution was sloppy, and should have included the time limit in the article itself or not at all. It was the 70s, that’s your decade not mine 😁
Indeed the time limit idea was novel and had not been part of the constitution before the 18th. Progressives saw it as a kind of safety valve and reform to keep Amendments from lingering and sneaking up on a public that no longer approved of them. But once it was it established that was the precedent, and SCOTUS leans on the inadmissibility of a political question to its bench. SCOTUS cannot decide differently. Neither can the American Bar Association. Or me for that matter 😉
It’s one of those things where Congress has zenith power, where if Congress does something the other branches actually cannot check it. Which is why the ERA is not the 28th Amendment despite the fact of many would like for it to be so or that my home state ratified it. (Virginia should get two votes just for being Virginia 😉)
And that is why I argue that if you believe the ERA is worthwhile, you have to start over and get the current Congress to push it through. In short, I think it is much harder to get the ERA today in 2025 then it was in 1972 during the Nixon years, and that is fascinating on so many levels because you would think that the opposite would be the case. Thank you for reading!
With all respect, I believe you are overlooking an important point. The wording of a resolution to consider the ERA is not as important as the wording of the proposed Amendment itself. It's unfortunate that the seven year mention appears in the resolution, because it appears that is where the opponents of the ERA are desperately hanging their reasoning to not provide the equal rights for all people without regard to sex. Nothing in the Amendment itself, as you observed, has such a time limitation, just a mention of a two year period between states' ratification and effectiveness. So the relatively recent action of Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia is not a factor to inhibit ratification. The American Bar Association (ABA) itself has something to say about any time limit to ratification saying that Article V of the Constitution includes no time limit of any sort. They go on to say that Congress lacks the power to amend the Constitution by adding a third requirement (time limitation) in addition to the two requirements already defined in Article V. And the only way a time limitation could be added would be by a NEW change to Article V that would have to go before Congress and the states anew. In the light of that, on August 6, 2024, the ABA pronounced that since Virginia voted to ratify the ERA in January, 2020, the nearly 600 member House of Delegates of the ABA adopted Resolution 601 that essentially says that, "as of January 27, 2020, the ERA automatically and instantaneously became the 28th Amendment to the Constitution." I was a small participant working with Sarah Weddington, my representative when I lived in Austin, in demonstrating for the ratification of the ERA in Texas. We were successful in that work despite the appearance of Phyllis Schafly and other Birch Society members in fighting against the ERA at the time. I was even privileged to be present on the floor (not in the gallery) during much of the proceedings for ratification next to Ms. Weddington's desk. There's nothing dangerous in the wording of the ERA. All we had to do was to convince Texans that their daughters would not be drafted to join the armed forces and fight on the front lines in Vietnam. That was the top argument by the Birch Society all bundled up with the tradition of keeping the girls in the kitchen and out of the board rooms. All in all, the ERA is simple and straightforward. It deserves ratification. Like the 15th Amendment, it's only fair.
First, thank you for reading. I understand why you have that opinion. This is why the history of the 18th amendment is so critical, it introduced a precedent which did not previously exist in the idea of limitations on when ratification could take place. The 27th Amendment was passed back in 1789 and was not ratified until 1992! 202-and-a-half years later. That’s wild. Before that the average time from Congressional vote to ratification was somewhere around four years. Interestingly, there are still four amendments outstanding that could be ratified, the most recent one is 88 years old, the oldest one goes back to 1789 as well, and they could still be ratified because there was no time limit.
The ERA ratification resolution language is indeed the problem, but it is empowered because of the way SCOTUS interpreted the power of Congressional intention, which was the correct ruling. The ABA is wrong in its current understanding of the historical evolution of parliamentary/Congressional power to legislate reasons and conditions. It is letting its desired outcome get in the way of the hard reality of having to start over, and I get that it is a tough position to be in if you really want that Amendment. But tossing the resolution does not solve the matter.
If for example the resolution was invalid then the proposed amendment presenting it to the states was also invalid because it could be argued that the 2/3s majority reached was based upon the specific wording used and the public assertion of such power represented a super-majority consensus of Congress, and if SCOTUS threw out the resolution it would be changing the conditions that Congress agreed to when it sent it to the states. The whole thing would be struck out. The resolution was sloppy, and should have included the time limit in the article itself or not at all. It was the 70s, that’s your decade not mine 😁
Indeed the time limit idea was novel and had not been part of the constitution before the 18th. Progressives saw it as a kind of safety valve and reform to keep Amendments from lingering and sneaking up on a public that no longer approved of them. But once it was it established that was the precedent, and SCOTUS leans on the inadmissibility of a political question to its bench. SCOTUS cannot decide differently. Neither can the American Bar Association. Or me for that matter 😉
It’s one of those things where Congress has zenith power, where if Congress does something the other branches actually cannot check it. Which is why the ERA is not the 28th Amendment despite the fact of many would like for it to be so or that my home state ratified it. (Virginia should get two votes just for being Virginia 😉)
And that is why I argue that if you believe the ERA is worthwhile, you have to start over and get the current Congress to push it through. In short, I think it is much harder to get the ERA today in 2025 then it was in 1972 during the Nixon years, and that is fascinating on so many levels because you would think that the opposite would be the case. Thank you for reading!