[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Only one more state needs to pass the Equal Rights Amendment to finally get it ratified
Source: CNN
URL Source: https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/us/e ... llinois-states-trnd/index.html
Published: May 31, 2018
Author: AJ Willingham
Post Date: 2018-06-01 00:51:31 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 988
Comments: 14

Only one more state needs to pass the Equal Rights Amendment to finally get it ratified.

By AJ Willingham, CNN

Updated 9:41 PM ET, Thu May 31, 2018

(CNN)This week Illinois lawmakers approved the Equal Rights Amendment, a long-proposed addition to the United States Constitution that would ensure equal rights to all Americans regardless of sex.

You would think that 230 years after ratifying its Constitution, the US would have some sort of federal protection like this enshrined in its supreme law. But the ERA, which states that "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex," has been languishing in Congress since 1923.

After decades of debate, it was passed by both the House and Senate in 1972. But for an amendment to be added to the Constitution, a minimum of 38 states have to sign off. By the time the deadline for ratifications passed in 1982, approvals had slowed to a trickle and stopped short of the magic number.

Recently, with the rise of the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements, there has been renewed interest in passing the Equal Rights Amendment. The vote in Illinois now brings the tally to 37 states -- just one shy of the 38 needed to add the amendment to the Constitution.

The ERA in the #MeToo era

Many states now have some sort of equal-rights language in their constitutions. But ERA advocates argue that amending the US Constitution to protect women's rights is still a critical step that goes beyond mere symbolism.

In the wake of women-led movements like the Women's March and #MeToo, ERA activists have found renewed energy.

"As we see attacks on women's rights, autonomy, and bodies every single day from the Trump Administration and the Republican Congress, passing the ERA is our strongest weapon to fight back," Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) said this week.

Maloney is the House sponsor of the Equal Rights Amendment and will host a shadow hearing on the need for an ERA next week on Capitol Hill. There has not been a committee hearing on the ERA in the House or Senate since 1984.

"The #MeToo movement was such a powerful phenomenon because for far too long women have not felt heard," actress and political activist Alyssa Milano said Wednesday. "It's hard to empower women when they are not recognized as part of our constitution. It's simple, we need the ERA to protect women's rights."

But opponents of the ERA, mostly Republicans, have argued the amendment isn't needed and would enable the removal of abortion restrictions.

States' efforts to ensure equal rights

Meanwhile, there are other official protections that ensure equal treatment among the sexes. Nearly half of states have state consitutional amendments or specifications that cover, among other statuses, discrimination based on sex. Some of these predate the ERA, and others, added after 1972, contain language similar to the ERA itself.

For example, Article IV of Utah's constitution, ratified in 1896, says, "Both male and female citizens of this State shall enjoy equally all civil, political and religious rights and privileges."

An amendment to Texas' constitution, added in 1972, states, "Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin."

In the US Constitution, the closest thing to an equal-rights assurance may be the 19th amendment, which guarantees women the right to vote.

The 13 states that haven't ratified it yet

Technically, the last deadline to ratify the ERA passed in 1982. However, Congress has the power to vote to simply extend the deadline if 38 states end up approving it. So, once the ERA gets one more state's blessing, there may be more legislative red tape to get through before it reaches official amendment status.

Here are the states that have not voted to ratify the amendment:

  • Alabama
  • Arizona
  • Arkansas
  • Florida
  • Georgia
  • Louisiana
  • Mississippi
  • Missouri
  • North Carolina
  • Oklahoma
  • South Carolina
  • Utah
  • Virginia

Despite a vigorous effort by women's rights advocates, a push to pass the ERA in Virginia died in the state legislature in February. Similar efforts also failed this year in Arizona and Florida.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: All (#0)

Congress has the power to vote to simply extend the deadline if 38 states end up approving it.

I wonder what court opinion said that.

In this case the deadline was purportedly extended to 1982 by a simple majority (not 2/3rds), and sent to President Carter to sign, because whatever. That was 95 H.J. Res. 638, House Joint Resolution 638 in the 95th Congress in 1978. President Carter signed the Joint Resolution to which the National Archivist assigned no public law number.

This assumes that a bill to amend the Constitution that requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass in the first instance with a Presidential signature not required, can be amended after ratification has started by a simple majority if the President signs off on it.

If the time limit provision can be amended by simple majority after the ratification process has begun, how is this amending process restricted from provisions other than the time limit?

nolu chan  posted on  2018-06-01   1:11:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: nolu chan (#0)

In the US Constitution, the closest thing to an equal-rights assurance may be the 19th amendment, which guarantees women the right to vote.

Seems to me the 14th Amendment is far closer than that, and is in itself an Equal Rights Amendment, making this one about gender redundant.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Pinguinite  posted on  2018-06-01   2:13:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: nolu chan (#0) (Edited)

Equal pay - that is the primary effect of this amendment. Also, it will mean that paternity leave will become a parallel right with maternity leave.

It will also require that all girls register for the selective service, and that any draft must equally include men and women.

It will require women on submarines, and will strip away any possibility of gender specific professions - all must be open to both sexes fully. If there are physical qualifications, they must be objectively reasonable and that is determined by courts, not (for example) the military itself.

With an amendment, deference to the Executive branch and "rational basis" will go out the window, and a higher standard, probably strict scrutiny, will apply to every gender-based difference.

If there is maternity leave, then paternity leave in parallel will be mandated.

The judiciary will then rapidly extend the full equality to Trans and the rest of the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ alphabet soup.

This seems like a conservative/liberal emotional issue, and as I am simply tolerant and unemotional about the whole thing, I don't really care if they enact it or not. I see what the knock-ons will be, and I don't get excited.

Drafting women for combat? Truth is, I doubt we will ever draft ANYBODY for combat again, so it's moot, but making women sign up too? Either do that or stop making men sign up. Fine with me.

Paternity leave rights to go with maternity rights? Fine with it. Sounds good to me.

Equal pay? I know both sides of the arguments, and once again I don't really care. The net effect of this will be to start effectively imposing work-week limits on the professions, and I think that is a very good thing. Right now, young professionals have a pretty poor quality of life because they are severely overworked, but women have an escape from that through child-rearing.

Businesses will either have to pay the women the same very high amounts as the men, even if they are not putting in, grosso modo, the same predictable hours, OR they will have to start imposing hour limits on the men, so they don't have to pay the women the same. Either way that's not necessarily a bad thing.

The trans-/queer front will be where the "Equal Rights Amendment" runs amok. But I don't really care about any of that. I don't care what bathroom people use. I don't care who screws whom or how. I don't think the law should have any say in any of it. I understand how passionate conservatives and liberals get on this subject, and I think they're all full of shit, frankly. Why do they care so much? I don't. Either way. ERA effectively drives things the liberal way, and will drive conservatives berserk. I still won't care.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-01   6:27:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Vicomte13 (#3)

Drafting women for combat? Truth is, I doubt we will ever draft ANYBODY for combat again, so it's moot, but making women sign up too? Either do that or stop making men sign up. Fine with me.

You have a strange view of the role of women.

But you are a strange person. Raising lizards from the dead delusions is all we really need to know about crazy Vic.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-01   6:45:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Vicomte13 (#3)

Equal pay? I know both sides of the arguments, and once again I don't really care.

Who cares about right and wrong huh.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-01   6:46:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Vicomte13 (#3)

The net effect of this will be to start effectively imposing work-week limits on the professions, and I think that is a very good thing.

Limiting people's ability to work is evil. You think evil is good. No wonder you worship a sinner.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-01   6:48:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: A K A Stone (#6)

Vic, is a little left from left center.

He stumbles with equality.

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2018-06-01   7:28:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: A K A Stone (#4)

Raising lizards from the dead delusions is all we really need to know about crazy Vic.

I didn't raise a lizard from the dead. God did. I was merely present.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-01   11:23:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: A K A Stone (#5)

Who cares about right and wrong huh.

I do. Both sides make valid points, in my estimation. It's a coin toss.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-01   11:23:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: A K A Stone (#6)

No wonder you worship a sinner

You calling God the Father a sinner?

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-01   11:24:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: GrandIsland (#7) (Edited)

Vic, is a little left from left center.

He stumbles with equality.

Nobody on the Left thinks I'm on the Left.

I oppose abortion, except to save the life of the mother.

I oppose the death penalty as it is practiced in America, because our justice system is so pathologically capricious. With a good justice system, I support the execution of all first and second degree murderers and all of those guilty of reckless manslaughter. I also support the execution of all perjurers in death penalty cases, and the execution of all corrupt judges or jurors in death penalty cases, as well as the execution of all exculpatory witnesses who refuse to offer their testimony, and the execution of all police and crime lab personnel who tamper with evidence in such cases.

The death penalty should be applied to those who kill wrongly, including through reckless error, and should be applied to every liar in the system who works towards convicting the accused.

I think the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden, and Sherman's March to the Sea, and the Japanese internment camps in World War II, were all justified.

Of course, it would be hard to get a conviction in a good justice system...

You would have a hard time putting me on the Left.

The Left think I'm on the Right.

I am a Christian and scientific, and I know therefore that we are all biologically first cousins, however many times removed, through "Adam and Eve" - whether biblical or mitochondrial - and we are all children of the Father in Heaven, who breathed our spirits into each of our bodies, and to whom our spirits will return. That is why we are equal.

I recognize the full importance of everything that both the Father and Jesus said regarding money and how it is to be used. My critical attitudes of wealth and power do not come from the Left, they come from God, whom I know exists because I've talked to him and experienced direct miracles.

I am, simply put, a witness of God, and my moral values are aligned with what HE said. (Not, however, with some things Paul, James, John, "the Church", the churches, etc., say, where I perceive they conflict with what God said directly.)

You're not going to find a nice niche for me, because the Left and the Right are each evil, and each good, partially, in their own respective ways. I stand for the good.

That doesn't mean that everything I say online is always good. I play around with ideas, and have a pretty dark sense of humor. But that's what it is.

If you want to know my ACTUAL BELIEF about anything, just ask me: "Ok, if you were King, what would you really do?" And I'll tell you. And you will find no distance at all between it and Jesus, and you'll find a lot of effort to apply YHWH's procedural norms, where they make sense, but blunt departures from them where they won't work in a system that DOESN'T have Urim and Thummim and direct oracular prophets.

I don't start Left or Right, or Center. I start with me, who has been heavily educated and shaped by God. I then apply my template of right and wrong, which is divine, to the fact patterns. This chops up and chops off Left, Right and Center and leaves a pastiche.

I frequently find myself at odds with the religious, because they are fanatically devoted to precepts that, in many cases, did not come from God at all but they think did. So we often don't get along.

I don't get along with people who assert there is no God either, because there is one - I've talked with Him - so these guys are just wrong on the facts, and stubbornly, arrogantly and stupidly so. It's like talking to the religious nuts, talking to the atheist nuts.

I don't get along with Catholics when they start to try the "You're a Catholic so how can you..." business, but the only Catholics who ever do that are so woefully un-knowledgable of the actual religion, compared to me, that they truly don't know what they're talking about and end up embarrassed. Also, very few Catholics post in the fever swamps where I post, like LF.

I get along fine with the Catholic clergy, who actually DO know what they are talking about as far as the religion goes, because what I have to say is interesting to them, they wonder about this business of me talking to God, and they find that what I say doesn't REALLY conflict with Catholic doctrine...as understood by a truly educated theologian (like priests are).

I'm a racial egalitarian because everybody's my cousin and I know it, and we're all children of God, so egalitarianism in that sense is divine.

Excessive economic classicism is an affront to God.

That doesn't mean that I "round to the bottom" and think highly of revolution. I don't like bloodshed, because I understand what it is: murdering children of God. Evil.

The welfare I support is the clothe, feed, house, educate, care for the sick variety. I don't support the: erase social class distinctions and make everybody walk in the street in pajamas crap, because that's just human jealousy.

Differences of wealth naturally arise from differences of talent, but there is a level below which God demands we not permit men to fall, and that level is pretty high, and more expensive than people will voluntarily do. So God made mandatory taxes and redistribution in his Israel, specifically so that there would be no DESTITUTE poor and homeless, and I support exactly the same sort of laws here, for the same reason.

When it comes to sex, all of it outside of wedlock, including masturbation, is serious sinning, so I don't attempt to judge the ickiness of any of it by human standards. God will handle that judgment. As for me, I don't really care what people do as long as they don't do it in the street and disturb the horses.

It's hopeless to try to fit me into a political box.

That said, I have generally voted Republican, for reasons that have evolved over the years.

The first election in which I voted was 1982. I voted for the Democrat Congressman who nominated me to Annapolis, because he nominated me to Annapolis. I voted against the Democrat Senator who didn't nominate me to Annapolis, because he didn't. There wasn't anything else to vote for then.

In 1984, I voted for the re-election of Reagan on national security grounds. I believed that defeating the Soviet Union was the most important objective in the world, and Reagan was right about that. I voted for that Democrat Congressman until he left office, because he was the one who nominated me. I voted against the Democrat Senators, because they didn't.

I voted for Bush in 1988 because he promised to continue Reagan's policies. I read his lips: NO NEW TAXES. By that point, the Democrat Congressman had left office, so I voted for the Republican, to vote for the party that was fighting the USSR, as opposed to the Democrats, who were abetting the USSR.

Because Bush lied to me about taxes, I voted against him in 1992. I voted for Perot because he was a Naval Academy graduate, like me, and I wasn't going to vote for the Democrat, because Democrats were still the party that opposed American efforts to win the Cold War.

I voted for Dole in 1996 because he was a war hero and Clinton and the Democrats annoyed me.

In 2000, I was an independent who worked to get McCain on the ballot in New York. When he lost in the primary, I hated W Bush for the nasty way he did it, and nearly stayed home - my vote in NYC was irrelevant anyway. By the time of the election, though, the Democrats were annoying me with fresh offenses, do I did trundle off and cast a useless, bitter vote for W.

I voted for W's re-election in 2004 because, up to that point, he had done well in my eyes in the War on Terror. I thought he mishandled that war. His economics were every bit as stupid as Reagan's, and like Reagan's, ended up blowing up the economy and causing a recession in his last year in office.

I voted for Sarah Palin in 2008, even though I was sour on McCain by then. I was not upset by Obama's victory.

Obama was alright as President, in my eyes, just as Clinton had been. I saw the Republican Right go mental over Obama, and they looked to me just as ridiculous as the Democrat Left looks like now in their anti-Trump lunacy.

Trump's pretty good, Obama, W and Clinton weren't that bad. H.W. Bush was mediocre. Reagan was pretty good. Carter was an unfortunate guy. Ford was a caretaker. Nixon was alright.

Trump? I supported him from the beginning of the primaries. I still do, quite enthusiastically, even though I would not have some of his policy positions. Grosso modo, I think he is doing a decent job with the economy, and that is of primary importance because it is the way that people's lives are improved.

I am just as ideological as any partisan fanatic, but I recognize the ways that the Democrat and Republican ideologies are fundamentally opposed to God on certain key things, so I reject them both and annoy them both.

Which is why the Left calls me a hard right guy, and the Right calls me a Left wing guy. I'm neither. Left Wing, Right Wing? I'm not a bird. I don't have wings. I'm a Catholic human: I have a heart.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-01   12:13:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Vicomte13 (#11) (Edited)

I have a heart.

That’s the weakness that leaves you left of center.

In the animal kingdom, there is no heart. There is only survival. Compassion, will be the killer of humanity.

Just as one example, sharks, have no compassion... and they will out survive mankind.

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2018-06-01   18:20:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: GrandIsland (#12)

Just as one example, sharks, have no compassion... and they will out survive mankind.

But dolphins do, and killer whales: warm blooded animals that care for their young have compassion.

And they kill sharks.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-01   21:04:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Vicomte13 (#3)

Equal pay - that is the primary effect of this amendment. Also, it will mean that paternity leave will become a parallel right with maternity leave.

It could mean equal paternity leave where both or neither have it. Also, if single women get it, why not their claimed baby daddy? Indeed, the possibilities appear endless for a productive baby daddy with lots of baby mamas.

Congressional Record; 92nd Congress; Senate, March 22, 1972; page 9568, column 1

STATEMENT

The proposed Equal Rights Amendment reads as follows:

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."

Being nearly fifty years old, the abstract language of the proposed amendent can be seen as the proverbial lump of clay which would be given to the courts to see what new powers they could derive and policies they could mold from it. Some have already been achieved via the Equal Protection clause of 14th Amendment.

For example, the ERA could easily have written same sex marriage into the Constitution a half century ago.

The moldable language of the ERA may be like Obamacare or the Fourteenth Amendment. You have to make it law to find out what it does. And with constitutional amendments, once adopted, they are very hard to change or get rid of.

A value added feature of the Fourteenth Amendment was to incorporate anchor babies into the Constitution. It reversed the relationship of the state and federal governments. Where U.S. citizenship had been acquired by citizenship in a state, under the 14th, the federal government dictated who is a citizen of a state. With self-determination of citizenship being a marker of sovereignty, one may see it as squashing state sovereignty.

The question is, what does it mean to the courts where it says, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

One of the possibilities is that all laws protective of women in the workplace would be unconstitutional, repugnant to the equal rights of men. Perhaps on the birth of a child, each parent or neither parent would get months off, with pay.

It is so vague and ambiguous that it cannot be known what it says until it becomes law, and the courts hear cases and tell one and all about the wonderful and surprising things it says.

But first one more state is needed, and then there is the problem of making ratifications that expired 35 years ago binding on the states that made them, and extending the long expired ratification date and surviving a legal challenge to that.

In The State of Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F.Supp 1187 (1981), the district court found the 1978 extension to be unconstitutional. The judgment was stayed by the Supreme Court on January 25, 1982, awaiting the ratification expiration date of June 30, 1982. On October 4, 1982, the Supreme Court issued its opinion:

OPINION

Upon consideration of the memorandum for the administrator for the Administrator of General Services suggesting mootness, filed July 9, 1982, and the responses thereto, the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho is vacated and the cases are remanded to that court with instructions to dismiss the complaints as moot. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950)

The cited memo reads in part:

https://www.nrlc.org/uploads/era/SGMemoERAMoot.pdf

In the Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1982

Nos. 81-1282 and 81-1283

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, INC., ET AL.,
APPELLANTS AND PETITIONERS

v.

STATE OF IDAHO, ET AL.

Nos. 81-1312 and 81-1313

GERALD P. CARMEN, ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL
SERVICES, APPELLANT AND PETITIONER

v.

STATE OF IDAHO, ET AL.

ON APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO IN NOS. 81-1282 AND 81-1312
AND ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
NINTH CIRCUIT IN NOS. 81-1283 AND 81-1313

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR
OF GENERAL SERVICES SUGGESTING MOOTNESS

1. These cases present several questions concerning the ratification by the states of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. Congress passed a resolution proposing that Amendment in March 1972. The preamble of the resolution specified that the Amendment "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." H.R.J. Res. 208, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1972), 86 Stat. 1523 (81-1282 J.S. App. 154a).

During the seven years after the Amendment was proposed, 35 of the necessary 38 states ratified it and, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 106b, transmitted official ratification documents to the Administrator of General Services (81-1282 J.S. App. 4a). Five of the ratifying states, including appellee-respondent Idaho, also passed resolutions purporting to withdraw their ratifications (id. at 4a & n.2). Idaho notified the Administrator of its rescission resolution (id. at 8a).

In August and October 1978, each House of Congress passed, by a majority (but less than two-thirds) vote, a resolution extending the expiration date of the proposed Amendment by 39 months, until June 30, 1982. H.R.J. Res. 638, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978), 92 Stat. 3799 (81-1282 J. S. App. 155a). The President signed the resolution on October 20, 1978 (ibid.).

2. Appellee-respondents—Idaho and Arizona, a state that has not ratified the Amendment (81-1282 J.S. App. 8a-9a), and legislators from those two states—brought this suit in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho against the Administrator of General Services in May 1979. The National Organization for Women (NOW) intervened in the suit as a defendant.[1] Plaintiffs sought a declaration that Idaho's rescission was valid and nullified its prior ratification; an injunction requiring the Administrator not to list Idaho as a ratifying state; and an injunction restraining the Administrator from taking account of any ratification that occurred after the expiration of the original seven-year period (id. at 2a).

n1. Legislators from the State of Washington intervened as plaintiffs. 81-1282 J.S. App. 2a.

The district court ruled in favor of plaintiffs. It held that plaintiffs had standing to sue and that their claims were ripe and did not present a political question (81-1282 J. S. App. 13a-76a). The district court then declared that the state rescissions nullified the prior ratifications, that Congress could establish the period in which ratifications would be valid only by a two-thirds vote, and that in any case Congress lacked the power to extend the ratification period for a proposed amendment once that period had been established (id. at 76a-93a).

The Administrator and NOW appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed petitions for a writ of certiorari before judgment to that court, and docketed appeals in this Court. On January 25, 1982, the Court granted the petitions for a writ of certiorari, postponed further consideration of the question of jurisdiction on appeal to the hearing of the cases on the merits, consolidated the cases, and stayed the judgment of the district court.

3. On June 30, 1982, the extended period for ratifying the Amendment expired. The Administrator informs us that no state transmitted a ratification of the Amendment during the period after the original expiration date of March 22, 1979. Congress has not passed any additional extension.

Consequently, the Amendment has failed of adoption no matter what the resolution of the legal issues presented here, and the Administrator informs us that he will not certify to Congress that the Amendment has been adopted. Even if all the ratifications remain valid, the rescissions are disregarded, and Congress is conceded the power to extend the ratification period as it did here, only 35 of the necessary states can be regarded as having ratified the Amendment. If appellee-respondents were to prevail on all issues, fewer than 35 states would be counted as having ratified the Amendment, and the Amendment would be regarded having failed of adoption in March 1979. But the date on which the proposed Amendment failed of adoption, and the extent to which it fell short of the necessary three-fourths of the states, do not affect the legally cognizable interests of any party.

Because these cases accordingly present only " 'questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before' " the Court (DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316 (1974), quoting North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971)), they are moot. See United States v. Alaska Steamship Co., 253 U.S. 113, 116 (1920). It is therefore respectfully submitted that the judgment of the district court should be vacated and the cases remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint as moot. See, e.g. Great Western Sugar Co. v. Nelson, 442 U.S. 92 (1979); United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39-41 (1950).

LAWRENCE G. WALLACE
Acting Solicitor General*
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530

JULY 1982

* The Solicitor General is disqualified in these cases.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://www.nrlc.org/uploads/era/ERASupremeCourtsaysdead.pdf

"Supreme Court Declares ERA Issues Legally Dead"

Post-Dispatch, October 4, 1982

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2018-06-02   0:39:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com