That is why Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin and Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier are proposing “rules” they believe will ensure an ERA “victory.” These irregular and unconstitutional ERA machinations intend to breathe life into the ERA corpse by merely announcing that the 41- to 46-year-old ERA ratifications from 35 states now count today and into the future towards making the ERA part of the Constitution, even though Congress has refused to reauthorize state approval of the ERA since 1982.
Cardin and Speier think they can “add” two more states that allegedly “ratified” the null ERA in 2017 (Nevada) and 2018 (Illinois). They also want to count five states that rescinded their prior approval of the ERA: Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky, and South Dakota.
Cardin and Speier’s resolutions do not identify any of the radical legal effects of the ERA. And their resolutions ignore the fact that the original seven-year ratification time limit was proposed by the chief ERA House sponsor, Democratic Rep. Martha Griffiths, who said, “this amendment will be ratified … as quickly as was the 18-year-old vote. … it should not be hanging over our heads forever.” Now, Cardin and Speier want no ratification deadline.
Twenty-four state legislatures that ratified the ERA included the seven-year limit when they voted to add the ERA to the Constitution. How are 41- to 46-year-old state “ratifications” valid today?
Liberal legal icon Lawrence Tribe, who supported the ERA and its congressional extension procured by a majority vote, told the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1978 that if the seven-year limit expired before “Congress took action to extend that limit or before the 38th state took action purportedly ratifying the ERA, it would be arguable that the amendment should be regarded as incapable of such belated resurrection.”
http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/19...am-country-feminist-constitutional-amendment/
Cardin and Speier think they can “add” two more states that allegedly “ratified” the null ERA in 2017 (Nevada) and 2018 (Illinois). They also want to count five states that rescinded their prior approval of the ERA: Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky, and South Dakota.
Cardin and Speier’s resolutions do not identify any of the radical legal effects of the ERA. And their resolutions ignore the fact that the original seven-year ratification time limit was proposed by the chief ERA House sponsor, Democratic Rep. Martha Griffiths, who said, “this amendment will be ratified … as quickly as was the 18-year-old vote. … it should not be hanging over our heads forever.” Now, Cardin and Speier want no ratification deadline.
Twenty-four state legislatures that ratified the ERA included the seven-year limit when they voted to add the ERA to the Constitution. How are 41- to 46-year-old state “ratifications” valid today?
Liberal legal icon Lawrence Tribe, who supported the ERA and its congressional extension procured by a majority vote, told the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1978 that if the seven-year limit expired before “Congress took action to extend that limit or before the 38th state took action purportedly ratifying the ERA, it would be arguable that the amendment should be regarded as incapable of such belated resurrection.”
http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/19...am-country-feminist-constitutional-amendment/
