Biden’s Controversial Claim on the Equal Rights Amendment: A Closer Look
President Joe Biden recently stirred controversy by asserting that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is now part of the U.S. Constitution, despite its failure to be ratified in previous years. This declaration came just before he left office, raising eyebrows and prompting discussions about its implications.
A Surreal Declaration
In a moment reminiscent of cinematic twists, Biden proclaimed that the ERA is effectively law, claiming it guarantees equal rights for all Americans regardless of sex. This assertion was met with enthusiasm from some Democratic leaders, including Senator Kirsten Gillibrand from New York, who celebrated this announcement as a victory for women’s rights and encouraged women to seek legal recourse based on this supposed amendment.
Biden’s statement included a bold affirmation: “In keeping with my oath and duty to Constitution and country… The 28th Amendment is the law of the land.” However, he did not specify which constitutional experts supported his claim—an omission that has led many to question its validity.
Reality Check on Constitutional Processes
The timing and nature of Biden’s announcement have drawn criticism for straying from established constitutional processes. Legal experts have pointed out that despite his claims, there has been no formal ratification of the ERA as required by law. The Justice Department and various judicial authorities have reiterated this point in recent weeks.
Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a staunch advocate for gender equality during her tenure on the Supreme Court, had previously stated that without proper ratification procedures being followed, the amendment could be considered defunct.
Colleen Shogan, Archivist of the United States, recently clarified her office’s position regarding Biden’s declaration. She emphasized that neither her office nor any executive branch can unilaterally publish or recognize an amendment without following due process: “The Office of Legal Counsel affirmed…that extending or removing deadlines requires new action by Congress or courts.”
Historical Context: The ERA’s Journey
To understand why Biden’s proclamation has sparked such debate requires looking back at history. The deadline set for ratifying the ERA was March 22, 1979—a timeline allowing seven years for three-quarters (38 states) approval. Ultimately falling short—only 35 states approved—the effort faced further setbacks when several states rescinded their support.
For instance:
- Nebraska
- Tennessee
- Idaho
- Kentucky
Additionally:
South Dakota stipulated its approval would expire if not adopted by 1979—a clear indication of waning support over time.
This historical backdrop underscores why many view Biden’s assertion as more fantasy than fact; it disregards both legal precedent and public sentiment surrounding gender equality legislation over decades.
Implications Moving Forward
As discussions continue around women’s rights in America today—especially concerning reproductive health—the ramifications of such declarations cannot be understated. While advocates argue passionately about advancing gender equality through legislative means like an updated ERA or similar protections at state levels; unilateral claims may undermine genuine efforts toward achieving these goals through established democratic processes.
Moreover:
Current statistics reveal ongoing disparities in pay equity between genders—with women earning approximately $0.82 per dollar earned by men according to recent reports from organizations like AAUW (American Association of University Women). Such figures highlight why clarity around legal frameworks protecting these rights remains crucial rather than relying solely on proclamations lacking substantive backing within our constitutional framework.
In conclusion:
While President Biden may wish to champion equal rights fervently; navigating complex legislative landscapes requires adherence not only to ideals but also respect towards foundational laws governing our democracy itself.The ERA Debate: A Complex Constitutional Journey
Introduction to the Equal Rights Amendment
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has been a contentious topic in American politics for decades. Initially proposed in 1923, the amendment aimed to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex. Despite its noble intentions, the journey toward ratification has been fraught with challenges and controversies.
State Rescissions and Legislative Challenges
In a notable incident, when Kentucky’s governor was away, the Democratic lieutenant governor vetoed a resolution that sought to rescind the state’s ratification of the ERA. This situation highlights an important aspect of Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which discusses how amendments can be ratified by state legislatures.
During this prolonged debate over several years, no new states joined in support of the amendment. Even if one were to consider five states that attempted to withdraw their support as valid ratifications, it still left three states short when facing a second deadline.
Presidential Influence and Extended Deadlines
Democratic leaders maintained that once states voted in favor of an amendment like the ERA, they could not later retract their votes before finalization. In response to mounting pressure from various factions advocating for women’s rights, President Jimmy Carter extended the deadline for ratification until June 30, 1982. However, this decision faced legal scrutiny; in 1981’s Idaho v. Freeman, a federal district court ruled against Congress’s authority to extend such deadlines—a ruling later stayed by the Supreme Court but ultimately deemed moot.
Fast forward to 2021: U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras stated it would be “absurd” for officials like the Archivist not to adhere strictly to established deadlines regarding constitutional amendments. An appellate court subsequently dismissed claims from Illinois and Nevada demanding publication of an unratified ERA version due to insufficient grounds.
Defending Democracy Amidst Controversy
Despite these judicial rulings and procedural concerns surrounding state votes and constitutional timelines—issues often overlooked by proponents—the push for equality continues unabated among certain academic circles and activists alike. Harvard Law professors Laurence Tribe and Kathleen Sullivan boldly proclaimed that “The ERA is Now Law!” suggesting that mere declarations could somehow alter reality despite existing legal frameworks.
This sentiment echoes past calls made by Tribe himself regarding former President Trump’s alleged misconduct during his administration—asserting clarity where ambiguity existed within complex legal matters.
Biden’s Stance on Executive Action
Interestingly enough, President Biden refrained from issuing an executive order directing action on behalf of activists who sought immediate recognition for what they viewed as overdue progress on gender equality issues through constitutional means. The administration likely recognized potential judicial backlash against any unilateral moves perceived as overstepping authority or disregarding established processes.
By choosing instead symbolic gestures rather than concrete actions—such as declaring new amendments without formal acknowledgment—Biden appeared more focused on appeasing progressive elements within his party than addressing substantive legislative needs or public opinion realities reflected in recent polling data indicating declining approval ratings during his presidency.
Conclusion: The Legacy Dilemma
Biden’s approach towards advancing discussions around gender equality through mechanisms like extending support for unratified amendments illustrates broader political dynamics at play today—a balancing act between genuine advocacy efforts versus opportunistic gestures aimed at securing favor among specific voter bases while risking alienation elsewhere within constituencies concerned about governance integrity versus performative politics.
As debates continue surrounding both historical context related directly back into foundational documents governing our nation alongside contemporary interpretations thereof—it remains crucially important we engage thoughtfully with these issues moving forward rather than allowing them simply fade into obscurity amidst shifting tides across political landscapes nationwide.