General Discussion

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,670 posts)

65. SCOTUS

Fri Jan 17, 2025, 10:08 PM

Jan 17

wouldn't be deciding whether or not a Constitutional amendment has been ratified, they would be deciding a) whether or not Congress has the Constitutional authority to set a deadline for ratification and based on that decisions b) whether or not a state can rescind a previous ratification if they do so before final ratification.

If they rule that Congress can't set a deadline (which would overturn a previous Supreme Court ruling, which is not out of the question), then they would need to decide the second question about whether or not rescinding a previous ratification is possible. If they say states can't rescind, then the amendment would be considered ratified. If they decide states can rescind ratification, the amendment would not be ratified.

If they rule based on precedent, i.e., Congress has the Constitutional authority to set a deadline, the amendment would not be ratified, and the second question would be moot.

Wanting to ensure that we are following the Constitution, unlike the other side, does not mean that one opposes ratification of the ERA (not saying that you believe that, but some on this issue have made that leap).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

3 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

kelly1mm adnoid Seeking Serenity

87 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

SCOTUS will throw out the ERA in a NY minute. [View all] speak easy Jan 17 OP

Uh no. boston bean Jan 17 #1

No? speak easy Jan 17 #2

What do you mean by "alternative facts ERA" ? It's the same one as it ever was. Hekate Jan 17 #3

March 22, 1979 was the ratification deadline for the ERA. speak easy Jan 17 #6

we had 7 years to ratify it rampartd Jan 17 #56

That's the point. They won't have to fight it Bluetus Jan 17 #21

Biden is stirring up the conversation on making wnylib Jan 17 #23

Trump won't give it a minute's notice Bluetus Jan 17 #25

There's nothing for them to "shitcan" tritsofme Jan 17 #29

Even more basically, the Archivist has not accepted it Bluetus Jan 17 #48

The archivist sabbat hunter Jan 17 #54

Actually NARA DOES have an official role Bluetus Jan 17 #61

You think women's lack of equal standing before the law isn't one of the HUGE issues? LearnedHand Jan 18 #68

Health care and fair pay are economic issues Bluetus Jan 18 #70

Of course Trump will ignore it. And of course SCOTUS wnylib Jan 17 #49

But an important portion of the America Public hears this as sort of bookend to Biden's term... electric_blue68 Jan 18 #66

The facts don't support that Bluetus Jan 18 #67

It's all optics setting a narrative Macrophylla Jan 17 #31

This is the wrong hill to die on right now. Bluetus Jan 17 #52

I completely agree with repetition. Bluetus Jan 17 #64

The condescension from you is un necessary Macrophylla Jan 18 #69

There is nothing in the constitution sabbat hunter Jan 17 #53

Very true SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #58

On what grounds? The required number of states ratified it in 2020. JohnSJ Jan 17 #4

March 22, 1979 speak easy Jan 17 #7

The ABA argues the deadlines make no difference spooky3 Jan 17 #14

Well then it is settled MichMan Jan 17 #15

Truly, the ABA is actually the rulers. Igel Jan 17 #50

"The ABA argues ... speak easy Jan 17 #16

There is no role for SCOTUS in the constitutional amendment spooky3 Jan 17 #17

So the executive can simply declare an amendment ratified, speak easy Jan 17 #18

He has no formal role, either. He simply made a statement. spooky3 Jan 17 #28

... then who has standing? speak easy Jan 17 #34

The states ratified the ERA, according to the ABA. spooky3 Jan 17 #35

A State that has rescinded ratification will petition SCOTUS. speak easy Jan 17 #38

I guess we will see. Nt spooky3 Jan 17 #42

I am not looking forward to it. speak easy Jan 17 #44

Consider the TikTok case. Igel Jan 17 #51

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

SCOTUS SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #65

Often missing from the conversation is that Tribe has tried to pitch this to SCOTUS previously FBaggins Jan 18 #71

The American Bar Association is made up of lawyers RandomNumbers Jan 18 #83

The DOJ lawyers SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #85

"New Rulers" ?? Wow, you seem to have A LOT of antipathy to women RandomNumbers Jan 18 #84

You mean people like RBG when she said the process needed to start over? MichMan Jan 17 #19

There is role SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #24

Do you think there aren't any constitutional law experts who disagree with Tribe? onenote Jan 17 #32

Of course some may disagree, but it's not just Tribe; it's also the ABA. spooky3 Jan 17 #33

Many constitutional law scholars disagree with the second part of your statement. Wiz Imp Jan 17 #60

Dillon v. Gloss Shrek Jan 17 #22

Related case Shrek Jan 17 #45

And five of them rescinded n/t MichMan Jan 17 #12

Right. Importantly those rescissions occurred before the 38th state ratified. onenote Jan 17 #36

Apparently that would make a lot of people posting quite happy. I assume they never thought it would become law hlthe2b Jan 17 #5

I was a libertarian in the 1970s. speak easy Jan 17 #10

SCOTUS has do say on what is in edhopper Jan 17 #8

"SCOTUS has do say on what is or not in the Constitution" speak easy Jan 17 #9

Is there something in the Constitution edhopper Jan 17 #11

Is there something in the Constitution speak easy Jan 17 #13

I do realize edhopper Jan 17 #40

"SCOTUS decides which amendments ... " speak easy Jan 17 #27

Is there some thing in the Constitution that says the court can declare a law unconstitutional onenote Jan 17 #37

They can declare a law unconstitutional edhopper Jan 17 #39

They can interpret the provisions of the constitution that describe the amendment process. onenote Jan 17 #43

Sorry - that just doesn't make sense FBaggins Jan 18 #72

If the country adds a new Amendment edhopper Jan 18 #78

That isn't the question FBaggins Jan 18 #79

There's been quite a few developments re sex/gender. nolabear Jan 17 #20

I don't think they get the chance to do so. elleng Jan 17 #26

So the executive can declare an amendment to be ratified speak easy Jan 17 #30

Yes, they may do that edhopper Jan 17 #41

Only because the case won't make it to them FBaggins Jan 18 #73

I do hope that this withstands the legal challenges, but in this era I can hardly be confident fishwax Jan 17 #46

I agree SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #47

There isn't anything to challenge FBaggins Jan 18 #74

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

True enough - but that was actually my point FBaggins Jan 18 #86

Agree 100% n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 18 #87

Yep JustAnotherGen Jan 17 #55

It will have to get to the court first SickOfTheOnePct Jan 17 #59

Those supporting this position have to ask themselves why that didn't happen five years ago FBaggins Jan 18 #75

It will be a 9-0 decision by the SCOTUS Polybius Jan 18 #76

It will be hard to tell what the final vote is FBaggins Jan 18 #80

The problem with the ERA is that the congress put a time limit on it's ratification. Jacson6 Jan 18 #77

Time limit is a standard practice on amendments madville Jan 18 #82