The Democrats might want to rethink this
Let’s go to a story
Biden says Equal Rights Amendment is ratified, kicking off expected legal battle as he pushes through final executive actions
President Joe Biden announced a major opinion Friday that the Equal Rights Amendment is ratified, enshrining its protections into the Constitution, a last-minute move that some believe could pave the way to bolstering reproductive rights.
It will, however, certainly draw swift legal challenges – and its next steps remain extremely unclear as Biden prepares to leave office.
The amendment, which was passed by Congress in 1972, enshrines equal rights for women. An amendment to the Constitution requires three-quarters of states, or 38, to ratify it. Virginia in 2020 became the 38th state to ratify the bill after it sat stagnant for decades. Biden is now issuing his opinion that the amendment is ratified. It would next fall upon the archivist of the United States, Dr. Colleen Shogan, to certify and publish the amendment.
“It is long past time to recognize the will of the American people. In keeping with my oath and duty to Constitution and country, I affirm what I believe and what three-fourths of the states have ratified: The 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex,” Biden said in a statement Friday. (snip)
But legal experts contend it isn’t that simple: Ratification deadlines lapsed and five states have rescinded their approval, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s law school, prompting questions about the president’s authority to ratify the amendment more than 50 years after it first passed.
Really, I’d say Republicans should totally support this
The equal rights amendment, in sum, would dedicate the nation to a new view of the rights and responsibilities of men and women. It firmly rejects sharp legislative lines between the sexes as constitutionally tolerable. Instead, it looks toward a legal system in which each person will be judged based on individual merit and not on the basis of an unalterable trait of birth that bears no necessary relationship to need or ability.
A major argument in favor of the ERA is that it would guarantee that all citizens, regardless of sex, are treated equally under the law. Currently, the 14th Amendment gives equal rights to all citizens but does not explicitly mention women. The 19th Amendment explicitly gives women equal voting rights relative to men but does not broaden its scope beyond that issue. An amendment combining the two — guaranteeing women equal rights with no caveats — is considered necessary by proponents of this perspective.
See, the thing is, the ERA would enshrine in the Constitution that women are actually, you know, women, and not those fake trans ones. More importantly, it would mean that men and women are, in fact, utterly equal under the law. It would mean that, get this, women would be required to register for Selective Service. Because the law must apply equally.
Another major argument against the ERA is that the ratification of the ERA would mean laws cannot be passed to protect men and women differently. The ERA states, “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex,” implying all laws must affect men and women equally. That standard is present in legislation surrounding racial discrimination. An example is present in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital from 1923. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to guarantee women a minimum wage because earlier, the court had ruled that men could not be guaranteed a minimum wage. The court based its decision on the 19th Amendment.
It could very well mean that existing laws that give extra protections to women would either be null and void or men would get the same protections, because the ERA calls for equal protection under the law.
Anyhow, we’ll see if Trump supports it and Congress does something to make it legally the 28th Amendment.
Read: Biden Declares Equal Rights Amendment Has Passed »
The U.S. Federal Reserve announced on Friday it had withdrawn from a global body of central banks and regulators devoted to exploring ways to police climate risk in the financial system.
Throughout the 2024 election cycle, President-elect Trump said he would carry out mass deportations once in office.
Four of Canada’s biggest lenders said on Friday they were withdrawing from a global banking sector climate coalition, joining six major U.S. banks.
The wildfires in California have destroyed thousands of homes and businesses and displaced tens of thousands of people—and the crisis is far from over. Man-made climate change is already provoking mass migration, and as environmental conditions worsen, tens of millions of Americans will likely respond by moving. The United States must do much more to prepare our political institutions for the domestic displacements that will result from climate change—as we will discuss at our upcoming event “How to prepare for climate migration in the U.S.”
