There's a Way to Add the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution--And We Did It

[niyad]

There’s a Way to Add the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution—And We Did It
2/23/2023 by Alessandra Sasha Goodfriend and Kate Kelly
The ERA is very much alive today. This terrifies anti-equality activists and columnists alike.



Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) speaks during a news conference to announce a joint resolution to affirm the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment on Jan. 31, 2023 in Washington, D.C. The Equal Rights Amendment is a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution meant to guarantee equal rights for all citizens regardless of sex or gender. (Drew Angerer / Getty Images)

The constitutional rights of women and queer people in this country are no joke. Can someone tell Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby? In his opinion piece earlier this month declaring the death of the Equal Rights Amendment, Jacoby made several mistakes both in fact and law. We’re glad to report that the ERA is very much alive—so alive, in fact, there is a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing scheduled on it next week. You don’t have to believe us, though. Take the word of one of the most preeminent constitutional legal scholars of our time, Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe, who told Congress, “My conclusion as a constitutional scholar is that the ERA is currently a valid part of the United States Constitution, that Congress should act concurrently to recognize it as such, and that even if Congress takes no such action the archivist should publish it as the [28th] Amendment.”

Contrary to Tribe, Jacoby argues that an initial deadline stands in the way of finalizing the validly-ratified ERA. But Congress never had the authority to set a deadline in the first place. The Constitution’s text is clear: Article V, which governs the amendment process, gives no authority for Congress to impose a time limit on the states to ratify. Amending deadlines are unconstitutional. Even if you accept the initial 1979 deadline in the proposing clause of the ERA as valid (to be clear, we don’t), Jacoby ignores that it was already altered once by a simple majority in Congress. The 96th Congress voted to extend the deadline from 1979 to 1982. Congress moved the deadline once and it can do so again. A past Congress can never bind a future Congress. There are bipartisan bills both in the House and Senate currently pending that do just that.

. . . . .

We have no de facto ERA to protect us. Arguing that the ERA is somehow “unneeded” belies the true motive of opponents of equality. If it was completely redundant, why would anti-ERA advocates spend precious time fighting against it? An amendment banning discrimination on the basis of sex in our most foundational document will make a monumental difference. That’s why they fear it. Think of how powerful other amendments have become. What if we had that solid of a protection for women and other marginalized genders in this country? It would be the most powerful tool possible to protect abortion access. In fact, anti-choice groups like the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) are so convinced of the ERA’s potential, they are absolutely apoplectic about its progress. NRLC recently issued a 21-page “Special Report on the Equal Rights Amendment” detailing how closely they’ve been following its trajectory the last three years.

The truth is that the ERA is very much alive today, and this terrifies anti-equality activists and columnists alike. We don’t need to start over. As Tribe said, we have met the requirements of Article V and just need the ERA to be recognized by the Congress as valid. It has enormous potential to protect reproductive rights and freedom, trans rights and much more. Conservatives keep trying to kill it because they fear its potential. You can’t kill something if it’s not alive and well. The ERA very much is.

https://msmagazine.com/2023/02/23/equal-rights-amendment-constitution/