US Archives confirms it won't take steps to certify ERA
Source: Associated Press, via the Richmond Times-Dispatch
US Archives confirms it won't take steps to certify ERA
The Associated Press 2 hrs ago
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) A day after Virginia became the critical 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, the National Archives reiterated on Tuesday that it would not immediately take any action to certify the measure's adoption as part of the U.S. Constitution.
The National Archives has received Virginia's ratification documentation but the Archivist will take no action to certify the adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment, the press office of the National Archives and Records Administration said in a statement Tuesday that echoed a statement it made earlier this month.
Typically, constitutional amendments must be ratified by three-quarters of the states, or 38, before ratification. But the ERA's future is uncertain, in part because of a 1982 deadline for ratification that Congress enacted decades ago.
The administration said it is following the advice of the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, which issued a memo earlier this month saying that because the deadline has passed, it is too late for states to ratify the ERA. The only option for supporters now is to begin the ratification process all over again in Congress, the department said.
The National Archives said it would abide by that opinion unless otherwise directed by a final court order.
ERA advocates have vowed to fight to see the measure certified, either in court or in Congress, where there is a push to remove the deadline.
Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Read more: https://www.richmond.com/news/national-world/us-archives-confirms-it-won-t-take-steps-to-certify/article_bfc4f1f9-dc36-51fb-a59e-5b174a92725d.html
LittleGirl
(8,287 posts)We could get 37 other states on board because they have already approved it. Change the deadline date! Easy peasy
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)Now it will also have to be litigated whether or not they were able to legally do so.
LittleGirl
(8,287 posts)Thanks.
cstanleytech
(26,295 posts)If not then shouldn't the self proclaimed Constitutional Republicans be supporting the process?
ripcord
(5,409 posts)Not only has the expiration date passed but 4 states have rescinded their ratification. This is going to be in the court forever.
stopdiggin
(11,317 posts)which is kind of the glory (and frustration) of that fuzzy document.
IMO -- you would have a hard time getting an opinion ruling that congress cannot provide these kinds of rules and conditions. Particularly when they were part of the original language and debate.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)does the 38 states that ratified it include the 35 that already ratified it by '82 so we only needed 3 more states after it was revived (or so we thought/hoped)?
melm00se
(4,993 posts)The Archivist is the Chief Administrator of the National Archives.
The current Archivist is David Ferriero.
He was appointed and confirmed in November 2009.
CaptYossarian
(6,448 posts)Of course he was appointed--just like Barr. That means the voters can't fire him.
melm00se
(4,993 posts)Previous long standing archivists have been reappointed by multiple presidents.
For example James Rhoads was reupped by JOhnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter.
CaptYossarian
(6,448 posts)But what else would you expect in the Age of Trump?
sinkingfeeling
(51,460 posts)GOP office holder, there will never be women mentioned in the Constitution.
DemocracyMouse
(2,275 posts)All women cease to participate in ANYTHING involving the United States until they are deemed equal and therefore full participants in the country.
The underpaid majority should have a strike for the same reasons.
CaptYossarian
(6,448 posts)They should just abstain from sex with Republicans, but that shouldn't affect some of the fossils that wield the most power.
FakeNoose
(32,645 posts)I guess I should stop doing that immediately. It's taxation without representation.
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)Though it can be tried. If success comes I think the deadline has to be challenged in court as not permissible under the Amendment process. My guess is that the Constitution doesn't say either way so then it goes back to original intent and perhaps what the Federalist Papers say. There should be some case law when it comes to things where the Constitution doesn't address things specifically.
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)ripcord
(5,409 posts)The Supreme Court ruled on this is 1798.
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)Qutzupalotl
(14,317 posts)Motivate women to vote: turn statehouses blue for a new ERA.