Democrats, led by President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, recently celebrated what they proclaimed as the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution. However, constitutional experts and legal authorities challenge this declaration, pointing out significant procedural and legal hurdles that remain unresolved.
President Biden stated that the ERA, which aims to ensure equal rights regardless of sex, had cleared all necessary steps, citing the American Bar Association and legal scholars as supporting its validity. “The 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing equal rights for all Americans,” Biden declared. Vice President Harris echoed his sentiments, emphasizing the ERA’s role in strengthening democracy and advancing equality, adding that fighting for women’s rights uplifts families and communities.
Despite these affirmations, legal experts and institutions like the National Archives argue otherwise. The ERA’s original ratification deadline, set by Congress decades ago, has long expired. Additionally, five states have rescinded their earlier ratifications, casting further doubt on the amendment’s status. The archivist of the United States, Dr. Colleen Shogan, and her deputy have publicly stated that the ERA cannot be added to the Constitution without new Congressional or judicial action. They emphasized their responsibility to uphold the integrity of the constitutional amendment process and adhere to established legal precedents.
The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel has also affirmed the validity of the original ratification deadline, stating that any extension or removal would require explicit action from Congress or the courts. Multiple court decisions at both district and appellate levels have upheld this interpretation, further solidifying the legal roadblocks to certifying the ERA as part of the Constitution.
In a recent press release, the National Archives reiterated that the legal and procedural barriers surrounding the ERA remain unchanged, underscoring that their role is to follow the law as it stands. Without action from Congress or a decisive court ruling, the ERA remains in limbo, regardless of the administration’s declarations.
This clash highlights a significant disconnect between political proclamations and constitutional procedures, raising questions about the administration’s approach to advancing the ERA and the broader implications of ignoring established legal frameworks.
