Three Senate Republicans urge archivist not to certify the Equal Rights Amendment

[Polybius]

Source: CNN

(CNN)Three Republican senators are calling on the Archivist of the United States David Ferriero to commit to not certifying the Equal Rights Amendment as part of the Constitution, as ERA advocates demand Ferriero publish the amendment before he retires.

In a letter dated February 8, Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Mitt Romney of Utah wrote to Ferriero, seeking his "reassurance" that he won't act on the ERA "until it has been properly ratified and legal questions regarding such ratification have been resolved."

Backers of the ERA have been pressuring Ferriero, who's set to leave office in April, to publish the ERA as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution as part of his ministerial duties, arguing that it has satisfied all the necessary constitutional requirements and in fact took effect last month. However, key legal questions remain unresolved such as whether states can rescind ratifications of an amendment and if Congress has the power to lift a deadline retroactively.

"In light of the calls for you to disregard your duty and certify the ERA, we write to ask for your commitment that you, and the acting Archivist who will take over in April, will not certify or publish the ERA," the Republican senators wrote to Ferriero, arguing that the ERA has "failed to achieve ratification by the states and is no longer pending before them."

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/09/politics/senate-republicans-archivist-era/index.html

---

Hate to side with them, but they actually have a strong constitutional argument. RGB said in early 2020 that we have to start over too.

[FBaggins]

1. The VP's duties in verifying the election were also ministerial

“Who cares that Congress put a time limit on ratification or that the courts have ruled that the ERA has not been ratified? We’ll just get someone to submit an alternate slate of electors… ahem… I mean publish the amendment and then declare that it’s done!”

The fact that a final appeal to the Supreme Court has not been completed does not mean that the legal questions are unresolved - particularly since we know how this court would rule.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. Keep those little darlings in the kitchen

Little women should be seen and not heard.

[Floyd R. Turbo]

11. And barefoot! Hide their shoes! 😏

[msfiddlestix]

3. I guess I slept through the passage of the ERA!!!

WOW!

We should have had Fireworks and Parades!!! Declare a National Holiday!

Romney joining the likes of Portman and Johnson should inspire to press on with strengthening the Separation clause in the 1st Amendment, imo.

[lonely bird]

4. The time frame was inserted into the proposed amendment...

Specifically as a poison pill to help prevent its passage.

Conservatives are gutless turds. Portman is an excellent example of this.

[FBaggins]

5. Not at all true

The Supreme Court had twice ruled about a century ago that ratification of amendments should be "reasonably contemporaneous". Since that time, all proposed amendments contained seven-year ratification deadlines.

How would the "poison pill" theory even work? The congressmen who opposed the ERA didn't vote for it and didn't author it. How did they insert the poison pill?

[smb]

6. Cite For The Supreme Court Ruling?

There isn't any such limitation as a general rule; see the ratification of the 27th Amendment (a combination of ratifications right after the Constitution itself was adopted and ratifications in the late 20th century).

The only outstanding issue is the explicit deadline clause in the amendment itself, which probably (pending a legal challenge if there is an attempt to deem it ratified) does prevent late ratification.

[FBaggins]

7. Dillon v. Gloss and Coleman v. Miller

see the ratification of the 27th Amendment

Which was penned well before the 7-year clock was added to proposed amendments.

The only outstanding issue is the explicit deadline clause in the amendment itself,

Not really true. The courts (so far) have ruled that the deadline has expired. The actual outstanding issues are whether the deadline can be extended again after it has expired (a question that won't be answered unless Congress actually tries), and whether or not states can withdraw their prior ratification if they do so before enough states have ratified.

[lonely bird]

8. Hmmm.

The court’s language is deliberately vague.

As for seven years? OK. I guess. Do we have links to any insertions made by whomever during the debate process to produce the ERA?

Does the Archivist have the authority to ignore the time limit? Can congress pass legislation that would retroactively eliminate it? Probably not. That would looked at as ex post facto most likely. Can it be reintroduced with the caveat that previous approvals by various states be accepted? Don’t know.

[FBaggins]

10. Deliberately vague?

So not only did people with no ability to write the text somehow slip in a "poison pill"... they used their time machine to go back a century and got the Supreme Court to mess with the process?

Do we have links to any insertions made by whomever during the debate process to produce the ERA?

I haven't seen any indication that it was any different from all the other proposed amendments that have been getting seven year clocks for the last century. You were the one implying that it was an attempt to make the ERA harder to ratify - don't you think that you should be the one to back it up?

Does the Archivist have the authority to ignore the time limit?

The archivist doesn't have any authority/discretion at all... just as VP Pence didn't have any authority to ignore state certifications in favor of some other slate of electors.

Can congress pass legislation that would retroactively eliminate it?

Maybe. It would certainly go through the courts and the current SCOTUS doesn't see friendly (to say the least)... but there isn't a precedent for whether Congress can extend a deadline that has passed or whether the states that have claimed to withdraw their ratifications can do so.

Congress could start the process all over... but it probably wouldn't pass and the ERA couldn't get 3/4 of the states currently.

[lagomorph777]

9. Just get it done. This is an international embarrassment.

[angrychair]

12. What am I missing

I understand why Republicans are against the ERA but why are Democrats on here against it?

[Polybius]

13. One of two reasons (or both)

Reason number 1: The ERA was first proposed with an expiration date of March 22, 1979. Before it expired, it was extended to June 21, 1982. It came and wasn't extended again until long after (try the 2010's!). Most say that you can't extend an expiration date after it expires, and for good reason. Politicians signed off to the ERA with the expiration date. They knew what they were doing. RGB said so herself in 2020 that we would have to start over from scratch.

Reason number 2: Five states rescinded their support before the deadline. It takes 38 states to ratify an Amendment, and if you count those rescinded states, that makes 33. Can a state rescind, or once it's done it's done? No one knows, because the Constitution is silent on that matter. It would most certainly go to the Supreme Court.

[SharonClark]

14. How did you conclude that Democrats on DU are against the ERA?

Nothing I've read here implies that.

[angrychair]

15. People are literally saying

It shouldn't count or be approved. I have now read about the reasons but I'm still not sure I agree.
Only because, given the political reality in front of us, the ERA amendment is dead forever if not allowed to pass.

That it took this long to pass is the sad reality that our country is not the nation we like to think it is but is as it appears: racist, misogynistic and bigoted idiots.