It's Worth A Try...
Since the election, the United States Constitution has been in the news, as many seem to be dusting off obscure provisions within it and contemplating their actual use. First there was Donald Trump threatening to make "recess appointments" for any of his nominees the Senate fails to confirm, and now this week a blue state is considering withdrawing its call for a constitutional convention, while Democrats in Congress are calling on President Joe Biden to move to declare the Equal Rights Amendment ratified and part of the Constitution.
Trump's recess appointment threat seems to have receded, at least for now. Republican senators seem to be falling into line over even the most odious and unqualified nominees, although this could change when they actually hold hearings next year. Recess appointments used to be regularly used, but nowadays Congress never actually recesses at all -- which would mean Trump might have to force a recess, using a provision of the Constitution that has never been used before (although the Washington Post pointed out it was discussed in the heavily-partisan media of the time, during the fight Andrew Jackson had with Congress over the Second Bank of the United States).
The call for a constitutional convention isn't as scary as it sounds, though. The whole thing is rather a mess -- states have called for constitutional conventions over all kinds of issues dating back to the 1790s, but one has never been held before. Even if the people proposing the idea got their wish, nobody has any clue about how it would be run or what rules would guide it. But no matter what, all they'd have the power to do would be to propose new constitutional amendments -- which would then have to be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, as usual. No matter how radical an idea the convention came up with, no partisan idea is going to clear that three-fourths bar, so like I said it's not as scary as you might think when first coming across the idea.
The last one is intriguing, though. The ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment has also been somewhat of a mess, and even if Biden acted it would doubtlessly wind up before the Supreme Court -- and who knows what they would decide? But it might be worth the effort, just to clarify the constitutional questions involved (which have never adequately been adjudicated).
Here's the basic story, as it stands:
More than 120 House Democrats have signed a letter asking President Joe Biden to urge the nation's archivist to recognize the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment by publishing the amendment first proposed 101 years ago -- a move they believe would finally enshrine sex equality in the Constitution.
If the president does as the Democrats ask, the publication of the ERA would probably spark legal challenges over the validity of the amendment, which, despite having met all the constitutional requirements, has not been added to the Constitution because not enough states ratified it in time to meet a deadline mandated by Congress.
. . .
In the letter, the Democrats say the ERA met all the requirements to become an amendment to the Constitution once it was passed by both chambers of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of states.
The House passed the ERA in 1971 by a broad margin -- 354-24 -- and the Senate passed it in 1972, 84-8.
But it took nearly five decades for three-fourths of the states -- a total of 38 -- to ratify the amendment. In the wake of Donald Trump's first election, Nevada ratified the amendment in 2017, the first state in decades to do so. Illinois followed in 2018. Then in January 2020, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the amendment -- well past the 1982 deadline Congress had set when it approved the legislation.
. . .
Proponents of the amendment have argued that the 1982 deadline is not valid, noting that the most recent addition to the Constitution -- the 27th Amendment -- was certified over 202 years after it was first introduced.
This summary leaves out a lot of details (and one of the constitutional questions).
When the E.R.A. was passed by Congress, they tacked on a modern preamble of sorts. Here is the full text of what Congress passed (emphasis in original):
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:
"ARTICLE --
"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
"Sec. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
"Sec. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."
What's at question is the clause that puts a time limit on the ratification process. There are two basic constitutional questions: (1) Can Congress even do this?... and: (2) Does it matter than the qualification is part of the preamble and not part of the actual amendment's text?
The first question is an open one. In modern times, time limits are routinely added to amendments as they move through Congress. But there still are a number of "ghost amendments" out there that were passed by Congress before they started slapping ratification time limits on them, who just need the right number of states to ratify them and they could become actual amendments. The Twenty-Seventh Amendment proves this.
I've written about this before, since it's such a great story. A college kid wrote a paper positing that an amendment originally proposed with the Bill of Rights (which originally had twelve amendments, not just the ten that passed) could still be ratified, since it was a popular issue at the time (limiting the ability of Congress to raise their own pay). His teacher wasn't impressed and only gave him a "C" for the paper. So the kid got annoyed and proved his idea was valid -- by actually making it happen. Like I said, a great American history story all around.
But it proves that old amendments can indeed become part of the Constitution, no matter what the current Congress thinks about it at the time. And since the text of the amendment is the only thing that actually gets ratified, is the preamble itself (containing the ratification timeline) legally binding at all -- or even constitutional? Again, the question's never come up before.
There are also two constitutional questions about the ratification process.
The amendment resolution passed Congress on March 22, 2972. Between then and March 22, 1979, a total of 35 states ratified it. This was three short of the goal of three-fourths (38 states).
During this time period, five states tried to rescind their ratification. The constitutionality of doing so is an open question -- can a state legislature have "takebacks"? Nobody really knows. During the ratification of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, several states' legislatures voted to rescind their ratifications, but their ratifications were indeed counted when the federal government declared they were now part of the Constitution.
The time period passed, and Congress actually voted to extend the period by another three years. During this period, no further states ratified it.
Since then, however, three more states have (Nevada in 2017, Illinois in 2018, and Virginia in 2020). And one additional state voted to rescind their ratification. So how many states have ratified it? That depends on which ones you count.
So the open constitutional questions are whether states that ratified the amendment after the deadline count towards the three-fourths total, and whether states that ratified it and then tried to un-ratify it should count as well.
Efforts to have Congress pass a measure retroactively lifting the time limit's deadline have not been successful. Which is why congressional Democrats are making a last-ditch effort to get President Biden to make a bold move now -- to force the issue before the Supreme Court, to be decided once and for all.
Biden could direct the National Archives and Records Administration to make the current archivist certify and publish the amendment. If the archivist does so, then we would have a Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.
If the Supreme Court agrees, that is. And as I began with, it is anyone's guess what they'll do. But forcing the issue would certainly be interesting, for a number of reasons. First, it would force the Republicans into arguing against the E.R.A. -- which now polls at a whopping 78 percent support among the public. That would be political dicey for them to do, obviously. And second, it would resolve the issue once and for all. Perhaps the court wouldn't address every single issue raised by the convoluted path the amendment has taken to ratification, but even addressing one or two of them would be helpful (for future amendments).
This seems like a fight worth starting, in the waning days of a Democratic presidency. It would certainly add some luster to Joe Biden's legacy if he were to push the issue and the amendment prevailed in the end. If it leads to a legal loss, well... how is that different than the status quo, really? At least Biden would get points for trying.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Given that the ERA is dead in the water, and has been for some time - and yet recently received some new ratifications, and polls (as you write) at 78% popular support - it's hard for me to see a downside to a move like you recommend for Biden to try on his way out.
Why the heck not? What can he lose, or the supporters of ERA lose, to have the Supreme Court clear up a few details of the amendment process going forward.
If it's supported and becomes part of the Constitution, nice. If it's shot down, at least it's no longer in constitutional limbo like it's been since the 1980s, and future Congresses and would-be amenders will have a clearer road map for their other ideas about improving the national charter.
Nice piece, thanks. Hope it happens!
JL,
as always, i'll try my very best to explain what the words mean, but i'm not holding my breath until i'm understood, because i'd almost certainly suffocate.
No. You have always tried to explain what Democrats THINK words mean..
Remember how you explained the new definition that Democrats tried to come up with for "racism".. The NEW definition said it was IMPOSSIBLE for black people to be racist..
Fortunately, as with all attempts by Democrats to change reality, it fell flat..
Remember "Latinx"?? :D
Here's the deal..
As I explained, ya'all have ONE "objective reality" that fits Republicans. And a COMPLETELY different "objective reality" that fits Democrats..
That is the very diametric OPPOSITE of what "objective reality" really means, That is why what ya'all have is, by the REAL definition, subjective reality..
I know, I know.. Ya'all just LOVE to try and debate what the meaning of 'is' really is...
But it's really VERY simple...
Subjective reality = Truth..
YOUR truth is that President ELECT Trump is a criminal.. And you will defend YOUR truth just as aggressively and as passionately as a christian will defend THEIR truth that there is a god..
Objective reality = FACT..
The objective reality is that President ELECT Trump is 100% completely and utterly INNOCENT of all criminal charges and accusations.. Even his one "conviction" is not valid because it has not been recorded and now will never be recorded..
I know, I know.. You want to throw out the equivocative "in the eyes of the law"..
That's fine. I am perfectly OK with that equivocation because the eyes of the law are the **ONLY** eyes that matter when it comes to determining guilt or innocence..
So, it's quite simple...
Ya'all's subjective reality, ya'all's "truth" is that President ELECT Trump is a criminal, is Hitler incarnate and is a fascist..
You are welcome to your truth.. Have at it.. Have a ball with it..
But the OBJECTIVE REALITY... The FACTS show that President Trump is completely and 100% innocent of ALL charges and accusations..
because it seems like you just made up what you think the words mean, or what you'd like them to mean, rather than understanding what they actually do mean.
And, once again, you accuse others of what you and your Democrats always do..
Of the 2 Partys, which of them is ALWAYS making up words and changing the existing definitions of words to fit their political agenda??
That would be the Democrat Party... The FACTS that prove this are as plentiful as they are conclusive..
I have given you but 2 examples (Latinx and changing the definition of 'racism') of a PLETHORA of other factual examples..
The FACTS... The OBJECTIVE REALITY is clear...
0123
Here is another example of ya'all's subjective reality..
In ya'all's "subjective reality" (ya'all's "truth") President Trump was hit by shrapnel, not a bullet..
SOME of ya'all's subjective reality is that President Trump was not even hit at all..
The OBJECTIVE reality (the facts) clearly show that there was NO SHRAPNEL at all..
The OBJECTIVE reality is that President Trump was, indeed, shot. The OBJECTIVE reality (the facts) clearly prove that beyond ANY doubt that, had President Trump not turned his head slightly just as the bullet was fired, the bullet would have taken off the back of President Trump's head..
These are the FACTS... This is the OBJECTIVE reality...
Ya'all are welcome to your subjective reality.. Enjoy your "truth" all ya'all want.. You have my blessings... :D
But your subjective reality... your "truth"... is not factual..
It's not objective..
And it's not reality..
Class dismissed...
0124
Remember that judge who got busted for taking bribes to keep kids in jail longer so that the company who ran the jail could make a ton more money...
It was the KIDS FOR CASH scandal where a judge was paid off to keep kids in jail long past their release dates..
Guess whose sentence Basement Biden just commuted???
:eyeroll:
This is ya'all's Democrat Party...
Ya'all must be SOOOOO proud... :eyeroll:
0125
As far as the ERA goes...
One question that NO ONE has even bothered asking..
Is the ERA even NEEDED any more???
Can anyone point to any institutionalized/systemic sexism anywhere???
Considering the FACT that there has been a woman Vice President (of a sorts.. :^/ ..) and there has been two woman POTUS candidates...
Granted, they were both REALLY shitty candidates and really shitty women, but they WERE women..
One has to wonder if the ERA is a solution looking for a problem...
Especially in light of the FACT that Democrats can't even define what a woman is...
I'm just sayin'...
0126
What About Consequences? Are Democrats Immune?
COMMENTARY By Frank Miele, December 16, 2024
But it doesn’t stop there. If there are no consequences for members of the first family, doesn’t that set the standard for the rest of us? Aides and lawyers close to President Biden are reportedly discussing the possibility of issuing preemptive pardons to other public figures who have been accused of wrongdoing by incoming President-elect Trump.
That would potentially include FBI Director Christopher Wray, Attorney General Merrick Garland, Special Counsel Jack Smith, and anyone else involved in prosecuting Trump for alleged federal crimes. It would also include members of the House January 6 Committee, such as Liz Cheney and Adam Schiff, but could extend far beyond that to include Gen. Mark Milley and former COVID czar Dr. Anthony Fauci.
The final two names are illustrative of the danger of a blanket pardon since both men have been accused by their critics of serious misdeeds. Milley, for instance, has been accused of improper communications with China in the last month of the previous Trump administration. Fauci is being scrutinized for acts ranging from conflicts of interest to collusion for the U.S. government’s possible role in creating COVID itself – and then covering it up. How do you simply ignore such behavior unless your goal is to obstruct justice?
The answer to that is obvious. Justice be damned. The only thing Democrats care about is circling the wagons before the second Trump presidency begins. Biden and his Cabinet officers will be working overtime to “gum up the works,” as Trump supporter Jeff Clark said about a move made by outgoing FBI Director Christopher Wray to promote his own staff prior to resigning.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/12/16/what_about_consequences_are_democrats_immune_152093.html#2
Publicly, I want to see President Trump take the high road..
But in the background... in private... I want to see all the President's men (and women) go after Democrats with the passion and ferocity ten times that Democrats went after President Trump et al...
Democrats need to understand that this sort of political lawfare persecutions have some very real and very serious consequences..
So much so that they would NEVER EVER be inclined to try this crap again...
0127
Freewheeling Transparency: Trump Holds First Post-Election News Conference
Donald Trump couldn’t help himself. “We will take a few questions,” the president-elect told reporters assembled at Mar-a-Lago for an announcement about a $100 billion investment from the Japanese technology company SoftBank. He answered nearly two dozen questions in an hour.
What was billed as a press statement became a sweeping press conference, his first since winning the election, signaling the return of Trump’s brand of free-wheeling transparency.
His staff had summoned reporters to talk up the new investment, but Trump happily fielded questions on everything from the border wall (the sale of unused material was “almost a criminal act”) to the alleged link between autism and vaccines (“there is something wrong and we are going to find out about it”). Five weeks before Inauguration Day, all three of the major cable networks took Trump live.
And the president-elect made news off-the-cuff.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/12/16/a_freewheeling_transparency_trump_holds_first_post-election_news_conference_152097.html#2
Had Token DEI Hire Headboard Has Been Hooker Harris deigned to do even a FEW of these, she might not have had her arse handed to her so badly and so completely..
Oh, she still would have lost.. THAT was pre-ordained..
But she might not have been shellacked so badly...
But she was a ZERO CHARISMA candidate and was AFRAID to be up there without a teleprompter and without pre-ordered PURCHASED questions..
She is a LUSER in every sense of the word...
This is the OBJECTIVE REALITY....
0128
This is interesting as a follow-up to Chris' post. This afternoon, the AP reports that
"Archivist says Equal Rights Amendment can’t be certified as Democrats push Biden to recognize it"
As I understand it, the Archivist announced today that courts have several times ruled that the short period for ERA ratification - seven years from 1972, as written in Congress's original amendment legislation prologue - is a valid restriction. As such, pending a rewrite of the legislation by Congress, the archivist says she will not publish the ERA as an amendment, no matter what the president might want.
Interestingly, channeling Chris perhaps, Sen. Gillibrand who is leading the current push to have Biden make the move responded that the Archivist has nothing to say about the matter, and needs to stand by and take her orders from the president.
I wonder what will happen next?
Gee, I looked up how to do it, and got a web link to work in this comments column! Progress, ever progress.
@m
the only thing you've proven is that you (still) don't know what you don't know. objective reality is the world as it would exist if there were no humans to say what anything means. what you guys in the Trump camp have (in fact) done is taken the language of objectivity and applied it subjectively, to make it appear as if everything were what used to be called "subjective," essentially redefining what "is" is, in your own mind.
everybody else here just sort of rolls their eyes and presumes you're trying to "win" but i know different. I have some very smart friends who have chosen to inhabit your universe, and who are significantly better than you are at defending it. human rules change, but no matter how clever they are, they can't change the laws of physics, and it's disheartening to see them (and you) try.
Michale
Considering I have PROVED that you had nothing to do with Law Enforcement..
Seeing how I have never once claimed to have ever been a member of law enforcement, I believe that I did far more to prove that point than you ever could have. But if you need to be praised for accomplishing something that was already done… ”GOOD BOY!” Hope that helps you.
You thought LEOs were "commissioned" like military officers.. They are not.. They are "sworn"..
Do you know what “commissioned” even means??? It means that whoever wants you to work for them is willing to pay for educating you so that you may meet their training requirements. That's it! A Sheriff can swear in anyone they need to accomplish a task in an emergency, but that doesn't mean that they are qualified to work in law enforcement anywhere else. If you are found to have committed a crime while working your job as a LEO, you are terminated and your commission is revoked. Your academy training is revoked. You will have to go thru the academy all over again to work as an officer.
You do not know this because you were not commissioned by a police department to attend an academy. You said you got trained by some company that YOU had to pay to get your training from them. That is why no law enforcement agency would hire you when you finished. You could be a mall cop or work security somewhere, but you were never hired to work law enforcement.
If you HAD any sort of Law Enforcement experience, you would know that an E911 Operator has to go thru the same exhaustive background checks that a patrol officer has to go thru..
I simply put ALL of my 2 and a half decades of LEO experience on my resume and I passed both my background checks AND Polygraph with flying colors..
Well that makes perfect sense! Seeing how you had absolutely ZERO experience in law enforcement, you would not have listed anything which is how you passed your background check. But you should be aware that these dishonest conversations and comments that you make on here are enough to end your job as an E911 call receiver. Michale, you continue to make outrageously dishonest claims that are not appropriate for someone in your new line of work to be making.
As I said, I went thru the same checks a patrol officer has to go thru.. Matter of fact, once my obligatory duty term to COMM is complete (a few years) I may be transferring to the road.. Or to Corrections.. Not sure which yet..
You are an idiot! How do you answer E911 calls on the road? You are not trained in law enforcement! Your current job might help you get hired to be a LEO by a police department, but you'd have to pass the academy first, and at your age that is not likely!
But irregardless of all that, the facts are clear..
I have more LEO experience in my little pinky fingernail than you can even HOPE to DREAM about...
For the last time: I have never claimed to have been employed as a law enforcement officer at any time! That is your lie! I worked for years as an E911 call receiver. I am married to the Chief of Police for my town who has over 20 years in law enforcement. You are a disgrace!