• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Equal Rights Amendment ratified

Briefly :—

The President cannot "ratify" an amendment. The states can ratify. Under current statute, the method of ratification requires states to transmit their certificates of ratification to the Archivist. When three-fourths of the states have done so, the Archivist publishes the amendment, whereupon it takes effect. The role of the President in this process—if any—is unclear.

The Archivist's role is probably only ministerial.

Current OLC opinion is that ratification deadlines are enforceable. The ratification deadline for the ERA passed before three-fourths of the states ratified it.

A number of states have subsequently withdrawn their ratification. There is no provision in the Constitution or in statute for doing so, but no prohibition against it.

The President's declaration is meaningless under current law. A court challenge could possibly consider ruling on the legality of ratification deadlines. It could consider whether states may withdraw their ratification. I'm not sure who has standing to bring such an action.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Briefly :—

The President cannot "ratify" an amendment. The states can ratify. Under current statute, the method of ratification requires states to transmit their certificates of ratification to the Archivist. When three-fourths of the states have done so, the Archivist publishes the amendment, whereupon it takes effect. The role of the President in this process—if any—is unclear.

The Archivist's role is probably only ministerial.

Current OLC opinion is that ratification deadlines are enforceable. The ratification deadline for the ERA passed before three-fourths of the states ratified it.

A number of states have subsequently withdrawn their ratification. There is no provision in the Constitution or in statute for doing so, but no prohibition against it.

The President's declaration is meaningless under current law. A court challenge could possibly consider ruling on the legality of ratification deadlines. It could consider whether states may withdraw their ratification. I'm not sure who has standing to bring such an action.
Click to expand...
Yeah, as I said, I know nothing about this. I just watched a Belle of the Ranch (formerly Beau of the Fifth Column) update where she said it'd been ratified. Though to be fair, on rewatching what she really said was Biden claimed it had been ratified and that it was now part of the Constitution.

T = 2:32

Maybe he figured that now that we're gonna live under Drumpf, there's no need to be factual anymore :p .
 
Norman Alexander said:
If what Biden did is illegal but part of his official work then it is legal. So sayeth SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but that just means the president-king can't be prosecuted for attempting illegal things. It doesn't mean the thing they try to do has to be done. Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election and can't be prosecuted for it, but they didn't overturn it for him. President-kings can't be spanked for trying to steal the cookies but that doesn't mean they get the cookies.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Yeah, but that just means the president-king can't be prosecuted for attempting illegal things. It doesn't mean the thing they try to do has to be done. Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election and can't be prosecuted for it, but they didn't overturn it for him. President-kings can't be spanked for trying to steal the cookies but that doesn't mean they get the cookies.
Click to expand...
Biden did not just attempt an illegal thing. He actually did it. He got the cookies he stole. You can't touch that, though.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Yeah, as I said, I know nothing about this. I just watched a Belle of the Ranch (formerly Beau of the Fifth Column) update where she said it'd been ratified. Though to be fair, on rewatching what she really said was Biden claimed it had been ratified and that it was now part of the Constitution.

T = 2:32

Maybe he figured that now that we're gonna live under Drumpf, there's no need to be factual anymore :p .
Click to expand...
I like how your source did nothing to investigate the claim and leave you with a clear understanding its absurdity. And I like how you didn't bother to look into it yourself, but rather elevated a weak claim into a strong one, when your source gave you ample indication that it might even be weaker than it looks.
 
Trump is using an executive order to overturn law passed by Congress and upheld by SCOTUS to keep TikTok in business.
It's open season
 
Trump is soon going to set fire to the Constitution and toss it into a dumpster. There will be chaos, that's what he lives for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom