Do you support the 28th Amendment, the "Equal Rights Amendment" ? (Poll)

[Independent thinker]

As Biden heads out the WH door he makes a statement that the 28th Amendment is ratified. This will be a legal battle.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/17/politics/joe-biden-equal-right-amendment/index.html

Biden says Equal Rights Amendment is ratified, kicking off expected legal battle as he pushes through final executive actions​

“He is using his power of the presidency to make it clear that he believes – and he agrees with leading constitutional scholars and the American Bar Association – not that it should be, but it is the 28th Amendment of the Constitution,” the official added.
But legal experts contend it isn’t that simple: Ratification deadlines lapsed and five states have rescinded their approval, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s law school, prompting questions about the president’s authority to ratify the amendment more than 50 years after it first passed.
Biden is leaning on the American Bar Association’s opinion, the senior Biden official said, which “stresses that no time limit was included in the text of the Equal Rights Amendment” and “stresses that the Constitution’s framers wisely avoided the chaos that would have resulted if states were able to take back the ratifying votes at any time.”

My opinion is that Trump needs to evaluate what happens if the 28th is ratified. Does it make any difference in 2024? Will it hurt business?

The ERA Solidifies Women’s Rights in the Constitution as the 28th Amendment

The federal government has finally recognized the Equal Rights Amendment as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ushering in a whole new era for gender parity in this country.

www.americanprogress.org

Much ado about nothing? Or, will it open the flood gates to frivolous lawsuits?

We already have equal rights but Biden is clearly wrong that it is ratified.

 

[Winston]

How about those posters who support the proposed amendment but oppose the abuse of power?

The question here is really simple. Does the Constitution give Congress the power to limit the time frame for ratification of an amendment. I don't see it.

 

[j-mac]

As Biden heads out the WH door he makes a statement that the 28th Amendment is ratified. This will be a legal battle.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/17/politics/joe-biden-equal-right-amendment/index.html

Biden says Equal Rights Amendment is ratified, kicking off expected legal battle as he pushes through final executive actions​

“He is using his power of the presidency to make it clear that he believes – and he agrees with leading constitutional scholars and the American Bar Association – not that it should be, but it is the 28th Amendment of the Constitution,” the official added.
But legal experts contend it isn’t that simple: Ratification deadlines lapsed and five states have rescinded their approval, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s law school, prompting questions about the president’s authority to ratify the amendment more than 50 years after it first passed.
Biden is leaning on the American Bar Association’s opinion, the senior Biden official said, which “stresses that no time limit was included in the text of the Equal Rights Amendment” and “stresses that the Constitution’s framers wisely avoided the chaos that would have resulted if states were able to take back the ratifying votes at any time.”

My opinion is that Trump needs to evaluate what happens if the 28th is ratified. Does it make any difference in 2024? Will it hurt business?

The ERA Solidifies Women’s Rights in the Constitution as the 28th Amendment

The federal government has finally recognized the Equal Rights Amendment as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ushering in a whole new era for gender parity in this country.

www.americanprogress.org

Much ado about nothing? Or, will it open the flood gates to frivolous lawsuits?

We already have the 19th Amendment...That covers it.

'The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.'

That says it all.

 

[kyzr]

How about those posters who support the proposed amendment but oppose the abuse of power?

Abuse of power like how?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The question here is really simple. Does the Constitution give Congress the power to limit the time frame for ratification of an amendment. I don't see it.

it doesnt say yes or no so it is left to Congress to decide when they draft the Amendment and already been adjudicated in 21 and 23.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The question here is really simple. Does the Constitution give Congress the power to limit the time frame for ratification of an amendment. I don't see it.

SCOTUS will rule most likely.

I agree with you. Just like the Constitution does not limit the 2nd amendment to not include guns the Dems think are scary. I dont see it.

So the National Archives has certified the 28th amendment and it now now officially part of the Constitution, passing all legal hurdles?

I didnt see that part.

 

[Winston]

it doesnt say yes or no so it is left to Congress to decide when they draft the Amendment and already been adjudicated in 21 and 23.

If it doesn't say yes or no then the default answer is no, Congress cannot implement a time frame.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

SCOTUS will rule most likely.

I agree with you. Just like the Constitution does not limit the 2nd amendment to not include guns the Dems think are scary. I dont see it.

So the National Archives has certified the 28th amendment and it now now officially part of the Constitution, passing all legal hurdles?

I didnt see that part.

No they said NO and there already was a court case in 21 it went to appeal in 23 both times the decision was the amendment had not passed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If it doesn't say yes or no then the default answer is no, Congress cannot implement a time frame.

yes, they can already adjudicate.

 

[ColonelAngus]

No they said NO and there already was a court case in 21 it went to appeal in 23 both times the decision was the amendment had not passed.

So what is all the Hub bub?

Biden said it is the law of the land.

Joe Biden would never lie, would he?

 

[Catman51]

Actually, the Amendment WAS ratified.

Provide proof f your claim. It does not exist.

 

[Catman51]

Women don't have equal rights by the law. The NY people with special rights have been white men. Providing equal rights for others isn't giving them special rights. You are here saying you support restricting rights and don't want to be called a fascist.

You are claiming what you want to be true to be so, without evidence. And you don't want to be called an idiot and liar, which you are.

 

[Rawley]

Much ado about nothing? Or, will it open the flood gates to frivolous lawsuits?

The former. Simply the incoherent rambling of a compromised old man.

The deadline for ratification expired decades ago.

 

[Votto]

Women don't have equal rights by the law. The NY people with special rights have been white men. Providing equal rights for others isn't giving them special rights. You are here saying you support restricting rights and don't want to be called a fascist.

Sorry, which laws give white men special privileges?

Answer: None.

 

[Catman51]

Actually, the Amendment WAS ratified.

Proof, along with a date and vote count. Or admit that you are wrong.

 

[Rawley]

Biden just said it was?! If you read the link there are good arguments both ways.

No there aren't. Congress set 1979 as the deadline for ratification. That was over four decades ago. After that date, there was nothing to ratify

Correction - the deadline was extended to June 30, 1982. Then it expired.

 

[TimFitz]

The more insanity reigns, the more primal we will end up.

That was no answer at. All. it was totally meaningless.

 

[TimFitz]

It is the bathrooms. Sound familiar.

No. it’d sound nonsensical.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Women don't have equal rights by the law. The NY people with special rights have been white men. Providing equal rights for others isn't giving them special rights. You are here saying you support restricting rights and don't want to be called a fascist.

Of course they do liar.

 

[Rogue AI]

Biden just said it was?! If you read the link there are good arguments both ways.

There is no argument. It was not ratified in the proscribed time. End of story.