Tweet

@SenMikeLee

More from @ERANoShortcuts

ERA_No_Shortcuts

@ERANoShortcuts

16 Mar

"The Equal Rights Amendment 2021" is a great show. There is a lot happening-- Congress, Executive Branch, federal courts, state legislatures, the media. But where is all this going? Much of what you now see is political theater. To understand this better, we must go back...

ERAs have proposed in Congress since 1923. But for many decades, they were unable to surmount the high hurdles found in Article V of the Constitution. Article V succinctly spells out how the Constitution may be amended. To protect the text of the Constitution,

the Framers required extraordinarily levels of political consensus to amend. Two methods were provided, but only one has been employed-- Congress, by 2/3 votes, proposes an amendment, but it only becomes part of the Constitution if 3/4 of state legislatures (now, 38) ratify it.

Read 44 tweets

ERA_No_Shortcuts

@ERANoShortcuts

15 Mar

@USATODAY

ERA MEDIA WATCH: @USATODAY piece by @mgroppe, "Biden Taking Hands-Off Approach to DOJ Barrier on ERA." Quotes unnamed Administration official saying Biden won't tell DOJ whether to rescind the Jan. 2020 OLC opinion that said the ERA had expired.

usatoday.com/story/news/pol…

The Administration official, responding on the condition of anonymity, said Biden remains committed to the ERA, but respects the independence of the Justice Department. An upcoming vote in the U.S. House of Representatives is "the appropriate next step," the official said.

The House will vote March 17 on a resolution (H.J.Res. 17) that purports to retroactively remove the 1979 ERA deadline; quotes Douglas D. Johnson, director of NRLC's ERA Project, as saying Congress is powerless to time travel back to 1972 to resuscitate a long-dead amendment.

Read 5 tweets

ERA_No_Shortcuts

@ERANoShortcuts

8 Mar

ABORTION AND THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT:
A THREAD

With the U.S. House of Representatives slated to vote on an ERA "deadline removal" measure (H.J.Res. 17) the week of March 15, 2021, it is timely to review one of the main reasons the level of support for
#equalrightsamendment

the language of the 1972 ERA has dropped so precipitously in the "People's House"--the house that is apportioned on the basis of population, and in which every member stands for election every 2 years. In 1971, 94% of House members voted for the ERA Resolution (H.J.Res. 208).

But when the House Democratic majority leadership attempted a "start-over" ERA (same language) in 1983, it failed on the House floor (11-15-83), drawing 65% support, short of 2/3 needed (14 cosponsors nay). Single biggest reason: the ERA-abortion link had become evident to many.

Read 25 tweets

ERA_No_Shortcuts

@ERANoShortcuts

7 Mar

Step right up! See the wondrous transformation of the ERA resolution (H.J.Res.17)! Introduced Jan. 21 under Congress's Article V powers, properly crafted by congressional attorneys to require 2/3 vote in each house. But now, in dead of night, in the blink of an eye-- transformed!

Here you see the original H.J. Res. 17, as introduced with trumpets Jan. 21, 2021. We invite you to carefully examine the "Resolved" clause-- drafted by congressional staff specialists, initiates in their arcane craft, to properly reflect the Article V requirement for 2/3 votes.

Now, do not blink... shazam! H.J. Res. 17, transformed! The number, the date, they've not changed--and yet, the pesky constitutional 2/3 requirement is no more! Only the tiny star, barely noticeable, conveying meaning only to initiates, reveals the visit of the stealthy magician!

Read 5 tweets

ERA_No_Shortcuts

@ERANoShortcuts

6 Mar

@VeronicaStrac

In new CNN piece @VeronicaStrac, sharply contrasting assessments of the 3-5-21 ERA deadline ruling by Judge Rudolph Contreras. CNN says the judge "dealt a blow to advocates of the ERA" by upholding the deadline and rejecting late actions by VA, IL, and NV.
cnn.com/2021/03/06/pol…

Douglas Johnson of National Right to Life said Democrats in Congress & state AGs are on "a political-pressure campaign to intimidate the federal courts into permitting them to air-drop the long-expired ERA into the Constitution, [but] a federal judge appointed by President Obama

ignored the political pressures and unflinchingly enforced the Constitution." But Katherine Franke of the ERA Project at Columbia Law School said, "Yesterday's ruling is not really a setback for sex equality or the ERA, rather it renews our focus on the bill

Read 4 tweets

ERA_No_Shortcuts

@ERANoShortcuts

5 Mar

U.S. House Maj. Leader Hoyer announced the House will take up the ERA "deadline removal" resolution the week of March 15. But, the script for this exercise in political theater contains so many absurdities, some players keep forgetting their lines. We noticed another blunder...

House rules require that for every bill, the sponsor must submit a statement citing the constitutional authority for the measure. For the House ERA "deadline removal" resolution, H.J. Res. 17, the cited authority is Article V, the article that governs amending the Constitution.

The "problem": Article V always requires a 2/3 vote (although not the president's signature). But the Democratic majority leadership barely has the votes to pass this political prop by a simple majority. So, they've simply asserted that they can

Read 8 tweets

Share this page!

ERA_No_Shortcuts

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @ERANoShortcuts

ERA_No_Shortcuts

ERA_No_Shortcuts

ERA_No_Shortcuts

ERA_No_Shortcuts

ERA_No_Shortcuts

ERA_No_Shortcuts

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Like this author's thread?