ERA, 28th Amendment Possibly Ratified, now part of constitution

[MarkD]

Given Equal Rights Amendment advocates have to start over from scratch, then whatever replaces it should be quite different and more expansive, as the LGBTQ community will be demanding that they too be included in it (and rightfully so) -and not just women.  So instead of the current wording:

"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."

Section 1 could instead be worded like this (best to keep it simple):

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, gender, or sexual orientation."

The other two sections would remain unchanged.  

I am including this idea in my proposal to rewrite the second sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is Section 3(b) of my proposed amendment:
"Just as it is important to clearly explain what rights states cannot violate, it is important that the states know which kinds of discrimination they may not engage in. The original Equal Protection Clause was too broadly worded because no classifications were listed. In its place will be this rule: no state shall, directly or indirectly, discriminate against any person within its jurisdiction on the basis of one’s race, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability status. Discrimination based on race and national origin shall continue to be scrutinized most strictly; discrimination based on sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation shall be subjected to heightened scrutiny – the sex rule here shall not be interpreted in such a way as to revive abortion rights doctrine -- and discrimination based on disability status shall be subjected to a balancing test: do the social benefits from the law outweigh the harm to the disadvantaged class. Obergefell v. Hodges, was correctly decided with the heightened scrutiny standard and so shall remain good law. But henceforward there shall be no rational basis scrutiny (except as would be needed to uncover constitutionally unacceptable goals; see e.g. Guinn v. United States), and the judiciary shall exercise no power to determine which classes of people are “discrete and insular minorities.” The following precedents, and others using similar reasoning, shall be recognized as wrongly decided and void: F.S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, Louisville Gas & Elec. Co. v. Coleman, Levy v. Louisiana (and its progeny, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety and Trimble v. Gordon), Sugarman v. Dougall, and Plyler v. Doe. If needed, Romer v. Evans shall be reconsidered under the heightened scrutiny standard; it was wrongly decided under the rational basis test. Truax v. Raich and Graham v. Richardson, shall be understood as having been based only on a state’s lack of power to interfere with federal immigration policy."

And, in Section 1 of my proposal, I provide that the federal government has to treat all people equally too, per the same rules as the states do in Section 3(b).

Race and national origin: strictest scrutiny (legislation must be narrowly tailored to achieve compelling governmental purpose)
Sex, sexual orientation, gender identity: intermediate scrutiny (legislation must be substantially related to important governmental purpose)
Disability: balancing test (weigh harms to the disabled against the benefits to society)

[Frodo]

Has there been any word on when the Supreme Court will rule on whether Virginia's ratification of the ERA will be allowed to stand?  

[Skill and Chance]

Has there been any word on when the Supreme Court will rule on whether Virginia's ratification of the ERA will be allowed to stand? 

I personally believe that a ratification deadline set by Congress through legislation is unconstitutional. However, if the deadline is unconstitutional, it seems like the 6 revocations also have to be valid.  That would mean it's still pending before the states with 32 out of the 38 ratifications needed.  However there are 12 states with Republican legislatures that could try to immediately rescind, effectively ending any chance of ratification in the current political era.  I highly doubt that New Hampshire has any interest in rescinding and Michigan Republican likely don't have the votes to do it, but it's a pretty safe bet to pass in all of the other 10 state legislatures. 

It would be wise for Democrats to lay low on this issue until their position has improved enough in the South.  None of the Southern states have ratified except for VA.  The most plausible path would be to keep the all of the currently standing ratifications in the North and West and then hope they start flipping Southern legislatures over the next 10-20 years.

[Frodo]

Appeals court debates whether Equal Rights Amendment is really dead

A panel of federal judges expressed skepticism Wednesday about two states’ effort to enshrine gender equality in the U.S. Constitution by getting the federal government to recognize the Equal Rights Amendment decades after it was considered dead.

At a hearing Wednesday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Illinois and Nevada sparred with the Justice Department over whether their ratification of the proposed constitutional amendment, long after a congressionally set deadline to do so had passed, should count for something.

The states are arguing that the deadline Congress set for ratification nearly three decades ago is an unconstitutional encroachment on state power. A lawyer for the Justice Department countered that, while the Biden administration agrees with the principles of the Equal Rights Amendment, the executive branch can’t unilaterally decide whether it is part of the Constitution.

The three-judge panel on the appeals court appeared open to the idea that states had the legal right to sue to force the U.S. archivist to certify and publish the Equal Rights Amendment. But they seemed less sure that their position was the right one, and that the amendment — which was proposed by Congress but needed ratification from three-quarters of the states — has become part of the U.S. Constitution.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/mikesacksesq/status/1630598500495892488

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

https://twitter.com/mikesacksesq/status/1630598500495892488

The Biden Administration needs to arrest all the members of this panel for crimes the same way he has been charging 1/6 insurrectionists. I am dead serious when I say that I consider efforts to cancel a duly ratified constitutional amendment to be equally disruptive to the rule of law as efforts to block a duly elected President from taking office.

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

https://twitter.com/mikesacksesq/status/1630598500495892488

The Biden Administration needs to arrest all the members of this panel for crimes the same way he has been charging 1/6 insurrectionists. I am dead serious when I say that I consider efforts to cancel a duly ratified constitutional amendment to be equally disruptive to the rule of law as efforts to block a duly elected President from taking office.

Well good thing no Court has blocked a duly ratified amendment.

It should be noted this panel included a Biden appointee and an Obama appointee.

The idea that the ERA was adopted is incredibly fringe. 

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

https://twitter.com/mikesacksesq/status/1630598500495892488

The Biden Administration needs to arrest all the members of this panel for crimes the same way he has been charging 1/6 insurrectionists. I am dead serious when I say that I consider efforts to cancel a duly ratified constitutional amendment to be equally disruptive to the rule of law as efforts to block a duly elected President from taking office.

Well good thing no Court has blocked a duly ratified amendment.

It should be noted this panel included a Biden appointee and an Obama appointee.

The idea that the ERA was adopted is incredibly fringe.  

2/3rd of Congress followed by 3/4th of states legally approves a constitutional amendment. The ERA reached that threshold, and efforts to block it are just as much an attack on the rule of law as efforts to prevent a duly elected President from taking office in the way that happened on 1/6.

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

https://twitter.com/mikesacksesq/status/1630598500495892488

The Biden Administration needs to arrest all the members of this panel for crimes the same way he has been charging 1/6 insurrectionists. I am dead serious when I say that I consider efforts to cancel a duly ratified constitutional amendment to be equally disruptive to the rule of law as efforts to block a duly elected President from taking office.

Well good thing no Court has blocked a duly ratified amendment.

It should be noted this panel included a Biden appointee and an Obama appointee.

The idea that the ERA was adopted is incredibly fringe.  

2/3rd of Congress followed by 3/4th of states legally approves a constitutional amendment. The ERA reached that threshold, and efforts to block it are just as much an attack on the rule of law as efforts to prevent a duly elected President from taking office in the way that happened on 1/6.

3/4ths of the states did not approve, as is required by the Constitution.

And Congress when they approved it with 2/3rds included a deadline, which at this point has long passed.

The fabrication of an approval of a Constitutional Amendment is an attack on the rule of law just as much an attack on the rule of law as efforts to prevent a duly elected President from taking office in the way that happened on 1/6.

[Vosem]

https://twitter.com/mikesacksesq/status/1630598500495892488

The Biden Administration needs to arrest all the members of this panel for crimes the same way he has been charging 1/6 insurrectionists. I am dead serious when I say that I consider efforts to cancel a duly ratified constitutional amendment to be equally disruptive to the rule of law as efforts to block a duly elected President from taking office.

An outright majority of this panel was appointed either by Biden himself, or by an administration in which he served as Vice President.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

https://twitter.com/mikesacksesq/status/1630598500495892488

The Biden Administration needs to arrest all the members of this panel for crimes the same way he has been charging 1/6 insurrectionists. I am dead serious when I say that I consider efforts to cancel a duly ratified constitutional amendment to be equally disruptive to the rule of law as efforts to block a duly elected President from taking office.

Insurrection is when idiots break into the capitol, following the law is when judges are arrested for ruling against progressives.

[Blue3]

I really want the ERA to pass, but saying it already has passed now would just be laughed at in court. Instead it's a warning about including deadlines in passage. Let the Supreme Court take it up, but it really seems to be quite clear. The Constitution doesn't set the deadline, but the law that was passed to explicitly govern this amendment did set a deadline.