Share this page!

ERA_No_Shortcuts Profile picture
Twitter logo
5 Mar, 8 tweets, 4 min read
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... Image
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. Image
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 Image
retroactively amend the 1972 ERA resolution (which, of course, passed by 2/3 votes), by simple majority. After all, the media won't care, right?-- it's the ERA! But it appears someone forgot to order the House's professional drafting attorneys to adopt this political fiction!
So, the professional drafters wrote H.J. Res. 17 to conform to the requirements of Article V -- i.e., to require 2/3 margins to pass. And, it appears that nobody noticed -- and now the thing has 203 cosponsors. Whoops. ImageImage
Now, this is not really a "drafting error," although that's what the Democrats will call it. It was by-the-book professional drafting. But, they sure will have to "fix" it--Article V be damned. Now, we think "resolved" clauses are supposed to be unamendable,
#equalrightsamendment
so it MIGHT be necessary for @JackieSpeier to reintroduce her unconstitutional resolution with a new number, with the 2/3 requirement excised. But if so, first presumably they'd have to get reauthorization to add each of the 203 cosponsors...oh, what a tangled web they weave... Image
(As we previously reported, the Senate companion resolution, S.J. Res. 1, was introduced with the same non-error. It will be "fixed" through a rarely used stealth-edit procedure called the "star print.")
#equalrightsamendment
@Jim_Jordan
@RepMikeJohnson

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with ERA_No_Shortcuts

ERA_No_Shortcuts Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ERANoShortcuts

ERA_No_Shortcuts Profile picture
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... Image
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, Image
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. Image
Read 44 tweets
ERA_No_Shortcuts Profile picture
15 Mar
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. ImageImage
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. ImageImage
Read 5 tweets
ERA_No_Shortcuts Profile picture
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 Profile picture
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! Image
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. ImageImage
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! ImageImage
Read 5 tweets
ERA_No_Shortcuts Profile picture
6 Mar
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 ImageImage
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 Image
Read 4 tweets
ERA_No_Shortcuts Profile picture
5 Mar
51, 60, 67?

Later this month, Senate Democrats plan to complain about an anticipated Republican filibuster of S.J. Res. 1, which purports to "remove" the ERA deadline. 60 votes, awful! Yet, the lawyers at Legislative Counsel drafted it to require 2/3 (67, if all senators vote)! ImageImage
How could such an "error" occur? Well, it's not really an error--it was drafting by the book. After all, the resolutions purport to be based on Article V, and Article V always requires 2/3 votes. But the ERA-revival scheme requires the pretense that Congress can Image
retroactively amend the 1972 ERA resolution, which required 2/3 votes, by simple majority votes. Apparently, somebody forgot to order the professional drafting attorneys to conform to this political fiction! To "fix," Senate Democrats will employ a rare "stealth edit" trick, Image
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @ERANoShortcuts has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @ERANoShortcuts!

Read all threads by @ERANoShortcuts