Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: SCOTUS will throw out the ERA in a NY minute. [View all]Judge is an Obama appointee.
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2020cv0242-117
As mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court held in Dillon that Congress can attach a deadline to a proposed amendment as an incident of its power to designate the mode of ratification. 256 U.S. at 376. That means that Congresss power to set a ratification deadline comes directly from Article V. See U.S. Const. art. V (providing for ratification by state legislatures or conventions as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress); see also United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 730 (1931) (The choice . . . of the mode of ratification, lies in the sole discretion of Congress.). The Archivists assessment of whether a proposed amendment has been adopted[] according to the provisions of the Constitution, 1 U.S.C. § 106b, should therefore include confirmation that the states ratified the amendment in accordance with any properly imposed ratification deadline. Because Congress derives its power to set a ratification deadline from Article V, it would be just as absurd for the Archivist to ignore such a deadline as it would be for him to ignore a violation of one of the conditions stated expressly in Article V. Contrary to Plaintiffs contention, the Archivist does not have to accept their ratifications as valid merely because they told him to.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
87 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

You think women's lack of equal standing before the law isn't one of the HUGE issues?
LearnedHand
Jan 18
#68
But an important portion of the America Public hears this as sort of bookend to Biden's term...
electric_blue68
Jan 18
#66
There is a strong legal argument that rescinding a ratification is unconstitutional itself.
Wiz Imp
Jan 17
#63
So the American Bar Association, a private organisation, hath decreed it. We must bow low before our new rulers
Seeking Serenity
Jan 17
#57
Who claimed that? The point is that, contrary to what has been asserted in this thread, it
spooky3
Jan 17
#62
Often missing from the conversation is that Tribe has tried to pitch this to SCOTUS previously
FBaggins
Jan 18
#71
Do you think there aren't any constitutional law experts who disagree with Tribe?
onenote
Jan 17
#32
Many constitutional law scholars disagree with the second part of your statement.
Wiz Imp
Jan 17
#60
Apparently that would make a lot of people posting quite happy. I assume they never thought it would become law
hlthe2b
Jan 17
#5
Is there some thing in the Constitution that says the court can declare a law unconstitutional
onenote
Jan 17
#37
They can interpret the provisions of the constitution that describe the amendment process.
onenote
Jan 17
#43
I do hope that this withstands the legal challenges, but in this era I can hardly be confident
fishwax
Jan 17
#46
Not yet -- but there will be if any court makes a ruling that accepts the argument that the amendment is in effect
fishwax
Jan 18
#81
Those supporting this position have to ask themselves why that didn't happen five years ago
FBaggins
Jan 18
#75