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]Wiz Imp
(4,340 posts)63. There is a strong legal argument that rescinding a ratification is unconstitutional itself.
The rescission of a prior ratification of a Constitutional amendment has occurred previously for the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. For each, states voted to rescind their ratifications, similar to the case for the ERA. Regardless, these states were counted when the federal government tallied the total states that had ratified the Amendment, thus declaring that it was officially part of the Constitution.
In February 2024, the American Bar Association (ABA) passed resolution 601, supporting implementation of the ERA. The ABA urges implementation because a deadline for ratification of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not consistent with Article V of the Constitution and that under Article V, states are not permitted to rescind prior ratifications.
Researchers at Columbia Law School point out that "[t]he Constitution says nothing about whether a state can rescind or revoke its ratification of a Constitutional Amendment, either before the ratification process has been completed or after." Advocates and scholars dispute whether ratification is a one-time event, once done it cannot be undone as the Constitution only provides for ratification, not unratification.
In February 2024, the American Bar Association (ABA) passed resolution 601, supporting implementation of the ERA. The ABA urges implementation because a deadline for ratification of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not consistent with Article V of the Constitution and that under Article V, states are not permitted to rescind prior ratifications.
Researchers at Columbia Law School point out that "[t]he Constitution says nothing about whether a state can rescind or revoke its ratification of a Constitutional Amendment, either before the ratification process has been completed or after." Advocates and scholars dispute whether ratification is a one-time event, once done it cannot be undone as the Constitution only provides for ratification, not unratification.
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