« A Commendable Shande: Bennardo on Legal Writing | Main | Caminker & Chemerinsky on Pete Rose, MLB, and the Hall of Fame »

Wednesday, February 12, 2020

The House Resolution on the ERA

Later this week the House of Representatives will take take up a joint resolution that would waive the prior ratification deadline for the ERA. (The prior deadline expired in 1982). This resolution probably has no chance of passing the Senate.

Interestingly, the resolution as currently drafted takes no position on whether any of the state ratification rescissions count. In other words, the resolution does not say that the ERA is ratified if the Senate passes the same resolution. Instead, it just says that the amendment is valid whenever three-fourths of the states ratify.

In theory, Congress could waive the ratification deadline but refuse to direct the Archivist of the United States to recognize the ERA as the 28th Amendment until five more states ratify (since five states rescinded their ratifications in the 1970s). Or Congress could require that directive as a separate resolution (which seems to be what this resolution contemplates). Thus, one way to read the House resolution is as an implicit recognition of the right of a state to rescind.

Posted by Gerard Magliocca on February 12, 2020 at 01:13 PM | Permalink


It looks like you are very much interested to write posts on this topic. And you have gained ample of knowledge in this subject. Quite impressive blog site that you have.

Posted by: Daniel Tan | Jan 3, 2021 7:59:18 AM

Just to clarify things here:

The author of the post, knows the practice of course, how to put links in posts. Here recent one of his, with link:


So, he would do better, to constantly do it so. So, readers shall be able to confront the sources, and verify and understand, what is really all about.

And I can't believe that I had to write all this.

Posted by: El roam | Feb 13, 2020 5:51:31 AM

Here another illustration, on the same subject at the time. That author, has posted on it, without a link. We had to engage in fishing expedition until the link or lawsuit found, just to find, that it is more than bit something else.

But again it is his right.

Here ( lawsuit against the ERA, without referring and linking to the suit itself ). I had to trace it by myself.


Posted by: El roam | Feb 13, 2020 5:14:26 AM

Well Joe, if you haven't noticed, I have refereed to what it is. The amendment itself. And mentioned that nothing there, touches really the current pending case in federal courts.

That's what happens, when posts don't link us to nothing. That's what happens constantly with that author with all due respect. We must engage in " fishing expedition " to find sources, for what he writes about.

But, of course it is his right.

Posted by: El roam | Feb 13, 2020 5:01:12 AM

Hi Guys,
If you are looking for Guest Post Website then Find US Lawyers offers a guest posts on a wide range of legal topics & legal Listing.

Posted by: Daniel Tan | Feb 13, 2020 4:51:54 AM

The supplied link is not what is being referenced.

What is being referenced is HJ Resolution 79.


I would prefer the first approach myself and Justice Ginsburg reportedly does too. Anyway, the the resolution says "whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States," which I guess someone who assumes the premise can argue accepts the validity of recissions.

Posted by: Joe | Feb 13, 2020 1:24:06 AM

Important. Just worth to note, that it is a joint resolution. Indeed, nothing mentioned, concerning the current saga in federal court. It starts from scratch. More important, is the substantive issue:

It does mention all together, women as having equal rights. Yet, also, that discrimination on account of sex, is forbidden of course. Sex, and women, don't refer necessarily to the same groups one may argue of course.

Here to the text of the House:



Posted by: El roam | Feb 12, 2020 2:44:06 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.