Below is my column in the Hill on the Democratic campaign to simply declare the Equal Rights Amendment ratified as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution. The question is whether raw politics is enough to shock the unratified and undead into life.
Here is the column:
Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin: The names of great constitutional figures are etched in the minds of every schoolchild. But soon, if Democrats in Congress have their way, they will add one more: David Ferriero.
Who is David Ferriero, you ask? He is 10th Archivist of the United States. He also may be the man who unilaterally declares the long-dead Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) not just alive but now part of our Constitution as the 28th Amendment.
Democratic leaders like Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, want Ferriero to simply publish the ERA in the Federal Register as a ratified amendment. It isn’t, of course. However, these Democrats insist that a unilateral decision from Ferriero declaring it ratified would mean it is ratified … at least until some courts say otherwise. And they are calling on President Biden to support this dubious move toward amendments by archival acclamation.
Such muscle plays have become common in the last two years. Democratic members and advocacy groups have pushed to pack the Supreme Court with an instant liberal majority. They have sought to negate state election laws and impose their own federal election standards on states.
These efforts have one thing in common: They avoid having the issues addressed by the voters directly or by the states.
This one makes the other efforts look restrained by comparison, however. Rather than submit a new ERA to the states, Democratic leaders want Ferriero to just declare it a done deal.
The reason is that Democrats have good reason to doubt whether an ERA would be ratified today. Before and after the ERA was passed by Congress in 1972, a variety of state and federal laws have been passed to enforce prohibitions on discrimination on the basis for gender and enforce equality rules in pay, promotions and programs. Moreover, many people today may see the equal or greater need for the protection of other groups viewed as discriminated against under current laws, calling for the inclusion of transgender individuals, atheists, undocumented persons, and others.
Yet, before Ferriero has his Colin Clive moment of declaring “It’s moving … IT’S ALIVE,” he may have to check the vitals again. The ERA is neither alive nor moving.
The deadline for ratification of the act was set for March 22, 1979 — an ample seven years to secure the required approval by three-quarters of the states, or 38 states. But it fell short of that constitutional threshold. Not only that, but four states — Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky — rescinded their prior ratifications; a fifth, South Dakota, set its ratification to expire if the ERA was not adopted by the 1979 deadline.
Kentucky adds a different wrinkle because its Democratic lieutenant governor vetoed the resolution rescinding the ratification when the governor was out of town. However, Article V speaks of ratifications by state legislatures.
Democrats argued that states could not rescind their votes, even before the threshold number of states is reached. Yet, they still fell short. So, Democrats and then-President Carter simply extended the deadline to June 30, 1982. In 1981, a federal district court ruled in Idaho v. Freeman that Congress could not extend the ERA’s ratification deadline. (The Supreme Court later stayed that order but then declared the matter moot.)
While the extension continued to be questioned constitutionally, it did not matter: Not a single new state was added during that extended period. Even assuming that the five states could be counted despite the votes to rescind their ratifications, the ERA was still three states short when it missed the second deadline.
Democrats again insisted that deadlines and the state rescissions could be ignored. In 2017, Nevada went ahead and ratified the dead amendment while Illinois did so in 2018. Then, in 2020, Virginia passed a ratification resolution for the ERA. And then — poof! Democrats declared the ERA passed, 41 years after the original deadline and 38 years after the second deadline.
Yet, in the end, the Office of the Federal Register must confirm the “facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature” of the state documents and confirm that they are “in good order.” Now, the ERA ratification may be many things, but “in good order” is not one of them. Indeed, the record looks like an interstate pileup.
To find this all “in good order,” Ferriero would have to accept that the first deadline is immaterial. Then he would have to ignore the second deadline. Then he would have to ignore five states that negated their ratification votes long before Virginia voted.
In demanding that Ferriero act, the Democrats often sound like the Nike slogan — “Just Do It.” Rep. Maloney explained that Ferriero “told us how much he believed in the ERA, that he wanted to be the archivist that would make it happen, to deliver it and do his ceremonial job and ratify it.”
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) insists that “many scholars” believe there is no deadline that can apply to an amendment. It can literally take hundreds of years, and it does not matter if states later rescind their votes — it literally never dies. Speier added that Ferriero should act to fulfill the wishes of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in declaring the ERA ratified.
The problem is that Ginsburg herself dismissed these claims and declared that Virginia’s vote came “long after the deadline passed.”
Ginsburg was not the only one dismissive of these theories. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued an opinion on Jan. 6, 2020, that the ERA was as dead as John Dillinger.
Democrats then pushed the Biden administration to change that legal opinion. On Jan. 26, 2022, OLC issued a second opinion that did not withdraw the earlier opinion but added obscure language on how Congress may disagree and “the federal courts may soon determine or shed light upon several unsettled matters.” All the opinion stated was the obvious: OLC opinions are not binding on Congress or the courts.
That was enough to demand certification from Ferriero. Eleanor Smeal, head of The Feminist Majority, declared: “The fact that we have declared, because it is true, that the ERA has met all requirements, it is law. The certification is a symbol but we deserve that symbol.”
So, an amendment that died decades ago, arguably eight states short of ratification, simply would be published as law by fiat of the archivist.
Democrats are particularly eager to get Ferriero to do so before he retires in April, or to guarantee that his replacement is ready to make that declaration. At the same time, Democrats — with the support of Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) — are pushing to lift the deadline for a third time.
For those who commonly invoke the need to support democracy, the refusal to concede defeat over decades of contrary state votes is a rather curious position. Yet Democratic members just want the declaration of life: It is alive because Ferriero will declare it alive.
It may be a tad early to add the name of David Ferriero to our pantheon of great constitutional figures. The Federal Register is no work of fiction. As Justice Ginsburg said not long before her death, you neither improvise nor despair as advocates for equal rights. You “start over.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
The founding fathers were operating without a net. If their experiment failed, they’d die. They wanted a constitution to work. They needed it to work. Today, our constitution has been a safety net protecting those that dared to defy its limits ever since. Today’s oath takers would be less likely to experiment with our form of government if they weren’t so protected from the consequences of their failures. Instead of them being treated as “above the law,” we should treat them as “outside the protections of the law.” Take an oath and immediately put your lives, fortunes and sacred honor at risk.
Democrats can invalidate the law or the Constitution if that is their desire. How can that be? Because they are fascists who neither believe in the law nor the Constitution.
It is true that 38 states have indeed ratified the ERA. Turley seems hung up on the deadline issue more than anything else. The constitution places no time limit on how long states have to ratify an amendment. The deadline congress imposed seems to be more about pressuring states to act in a timely manner.
38 states, the minimum for an amendment to be added to the constitution have already ratified it. It’s just a matter of finishing up the formalities that seems to be the problem and it is states or legislators opposed to the amendment that are intentionally dragging their feet on the issue as long as possible.
If all state ratifications are confirmed then the democrats are right to push for the process to move forward.
The Constitution doesn’t place a time limit. But Congress placed a time limit:
“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress.”
That did not occur.
But congress did extend the deadline. There’s no statute or constitutional prohibition on how many times congress can extend a deadline or change it. The ratifications themselves don’t become moot because a deadline passed. Notice that the law doesn’t state that if the deadline is missed all ratifications are null and void.
Missing the deadline is not automatically a nullification of the ratifications.
Mississippi ratified the 13th amendment 130 years AFTER it was adopted. They missed a deadline and still were able to ratify the 13th amendment ending slavery.
AFAIK, Congress did not extend the deadline (it was not passed by both chambers). If you want to convince me that I’m mistaken, link to the law you’re referring to.
The text says that it “shall be valid … when ratified … within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress.” It was not ratified within 7 years, so it isn’t valid.
Anonymous, you’re right congress didn’t extend the deadline. The house voted to eliminate the deadline. However there seems to an issue of whether the ratifications are nullified if the deadline is missed. The law itself doesn’t state unequivocally that state ratifications are voided simply because a deadline is missed. Article V of the Constitution speaks only to the states’ power to ratify an amendment but not to the power to rescind a ratification. All precedents concerning state rescissions of ratifications indicate that such actions are not valid and that the constitutional amendment process as described in Article V allows only for ratification.
“but not to the power to rescind a ratification.”
That leads it up to the state. What you say doesn’t even make logic sense.
Anonymous,
“ but not the power to rescind a ratification.”
That leads it up to the state. What you say doesn’t even make logic sense.
No, because the constitution doesn’t explicitly state a state has that right nor are there state laws allowing rescinding a ratification.
The 27th amendment (the one about the timing of Congressional pay raises, yawn) was first proposed in 1789 but not ratified until 1992, although the text of that amendment didn’t include an expiration date.
It is not clear if congress can even put a time limit on ratification of an amendment. The constitution doesn’t authorize congress to issue deadlines on ratification of amendments.
The courts shouldn’t even be determining whether the ratifications are legal or not. Only congress can determine that. The solution would be to kick the question back to congress, is the ERA ratified or not? So far it seems that is should already be. It’s just a matter of finishing up the formalities of putting it on official record.
“the constitution doesn’t explicitly state a state has that right”
It doesn’t have to say it explicitly. The 10th Amendment makes explicit that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Constitution doesn’t give the federal government the right to prevent rescission, nor does the Constitution say that states are prohibited from rescinding ratification. Ergo, states should have a right to rescind ratification votes.
This comment is a ¨slam dunk.¨ Well done…you settled the matter.
Anonymous,
1979
“It doesn’t have to say it explicitly. The 10th Amendment makes explicit that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Yes it does. Any constitutional originalist such as the majority of the supreme court justices would be hard pressed to use your argument. Just because it doesn’t say it doesn’t mean it’s allowed. Isn’t that the same argument made by abortion rights activists? There is not right to abortion in the constitution, but it infers it. Here you are trying to argue using that same rationale.
The Constitution does NOT explicitly authorize congress to set a deadline for ratifying a constitutional amendment. The constitution says the powers not delegated to the United states by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states., are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Guess what no state has a law or state constitutional process for rescinding a ratification. None. In fact when an extension for the ERA was being considered states specifically wanted to put into the law a right for the states to be able to rescind their ratification. That was rejected by congress. If the states had to ASK for the right it means they didn’t have their own laws or state constitutional laws allowing it.
“The Constitution doesn’t give the federal government the right to prevent rescission, nor does the Constitution say that states are prohibited from rescinding ratification. Ergo, states should have a right to rescind ratification votes.”
States don’t have a right to rescind a ratification. Just because there is NO law specifically stating states have a right to rescind is not an automatic right to do so. This displays a fundamental lack of understanding on how the constitution works.
The only way for a state to “rescind” a ratification would be for congress to allow it. Congress is the ONLY body capable of making it a law to allow them to do so. Remember they already asked congress for the right as far back as 1981 and it was soundly rejected.
Illogical.
Yes, absolutely, one can argue **in favor** of the right to abortion using the 9th and 10th Amendments: that it is an unenumerated personal right. I also believe that women have a right to abortion under the 9th and 10th Amendments.
“Here you are trying to argue using that same rationale.”
Except that I’m talking about an unenumerated state right, not an unenumerated personal right. But yes, I’m saying that both states and people have unenumerated rights, and we know this because the Constitution makes explicit in the 10th Amendment that both states and people have unenumerated rights.
You can certainly argue that the right to rescind ratificiation votes isn’t among States’ unenumerated rights highlighted by the 10th Amendment, but to do that, you have to present an argument that takes the 10th Amendment seriously. So far, you haven’t done that.
“States don’t have a right to rescind a ratification.”
But they do have the right to rescind their non-ratification (as did Virginia, Nevada, and Illinois)?
Please pick a lane and stay in it.
“Please pick a lane and stay in it.”
Svez is a drunk driver.
You don’t have a basic understanding of the Constitution which has been pointed out many times. Instead of learning from your mistakes, you repeat them. I’m not going to explain what has been described to you many times. Most people know what I am talking about, so they flip the page. If they don’t know and understand the basics of the Constitution, too bad for them.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“You don’t have a basic understanding of the Constitution which has been pointed out many times. Instead of learning from your mistakes, you repeat them. I’m not going to explain what has been described to you many times.”
You are the one who projects onto others your failure to understand certain aspects of an issue. You should be following your own advice. Most people don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
You are a special person. There is no need to constantly explain those things you will never understand.
Svel-troll: It is magnanimous that people even interact with you. You are an idiot. You are the kind of idiot that must be supported by a trust find or similar, because no person of your mitochondria-level intellect, and more importantly, life experience, is not working at Wal-Mart for $10.00/hr. Everyone her knows you are an idiot. You are an idiot to the point that I now laugh when I see your name pop up. If you aren’t being paid for your straight up BS, then you are being cheated, comrade. Go to H*lll. Nobody give two s***** about your incessant, grade school, pre-I need deodorant whining. Heaven help you if you ever need our help in a future world; i guarantee you will be emptying cha,ber pots. I guarantee you: you could make so much more money by actually learning a trade and not shilling for a troll farm and actually helping people. That you don’t ever even intimate that tells me that you are pretty much the American Prince Andrew. Except that you aren’t. your NY brownstone is all that stands between you and actually being judged a s a human being by other people that are trying to make it on earth. I never disrespect the Professor by swearing on his blog, but F**k you. Your ilk are about to whiter like daisies in the summertime, because ‘the rest of us’ actually know how to do things, and we will, against the likes of you. i/n a heartbeat and without much effort.. You are a joke, why you come here every day is a complete f***ing mystery, and most of us ignore you altogether. This is a rare exception where I didn’t, and it’s because your delusions are on the level of a G*d d*mn padded room. I do not envy you. Your own brain is hell enough.
What a nasty comment James. Your many insults only reflect on you.
James, LOL!!! Wow, you certainly got triggered like a cheap Saturday night special. “That you don’t ever even intimate that tells me that you are pretty much the American Prince Andrew. Except that you aren’t.” HUH?? I wouldn’t be talking about intellect levels or idiocy with the kind of frothing at the mouth word salad you just upchucked. Holey Jeezus man.
Anonymous, actually congress did extend the deadline once. In 1982. The original deadline was 1979. Congress extended it until 1982.
You are repeating what someone said earlier.
The Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: Contemporary Ratification Issues Updated December 23, 2019: The entirety of the text of can be found at:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42979
below if from page 16-17 just trying to present the facts as they may be.
Ratification Is Extended in 1978, but Expires in 1982 By the late 1970s, the ratification process had clearly stalled, and the deadline for ratification as specified in the preamble to H.J. Res. 208 was approaching. Reacting to the impending “sunset” date of March 22, 1979, ERA supporters developed a novel strategy to extend the deadline by congressional resolution. The vehicle chosen by congressional supporters was a House joint resolution, H.J.Res. 638, introduced in the 95th Congress on October 26, 1977, by Representative Elizabeth Holtzman84 of New York and others. In its original form, the resolution proposed to extend the deadline an additional seven years, thus doubling the original ratification period. During hearings in the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, legal scholars debated questions on the authority of Congress to extend the deadline; whether an extension vote should be by a simple majority or a supermajority of two-thirds of the Members present and voting; and if state rescissions of their ratifications were lawful. The full Judiciary Committee also addressed these issues during its deliberations in 1978. 85 Continuing controversy in the committee and opposition to extending the ratification period a full seven years led to a compromise amendment to the resolution that reduced the proposed extension to three years, three months, and eight days. ERA supporters accepted the shorter period as necessary to assure committee approval of the extension. Two other changes, one that would have recognized the right of states to rescind their ratifications, and a second requiring passage of the extension in the full House by a two-thirds super majority, were both rejected by the committee when it reported the resolution to the House on July 30.86 The full House debated the resolution during summer 1978, rejecting an amendment that proposed to recognize states’ efforts to rescind their instruments of ratification. Another amendment rejected on the floor would have required votes on the ERA deadline extension to pass by the same two-thirds vote necessary for original actions proposing constitutional amendments. The House adopted the resolution by a vote of 233 to 189 on August 15, 1978.87 The Senate took up H.J.Res. 638 in October; during its deliberations it rejected amendments similar to those offered in the House and joined the House in adopting the resolution, in this case by a vote of 60 to 36 on October 6. 88 In an unusual expression of support, President Jimmy Carter signed the joint resolution on October 20, even though the procedure of proposing an amendment to the states is solely a congressional prerogative under the Constitution. 89 During the extended ratification period, ERA supporters sought unsuccessfully to secure the three necessary ratifications for the amendment, while opponents pursued rescission in the states with similarly unsuccessful results. A Gallup Poll reported in August 1981 that 63% of respondents supported the amendment, a higher percentage than in any previous survey, but, as one observer noted, “The positive poll results were really negative, because additional ratifications needed to come from the states in which support was identified as weakest.” 90 On June 30, 1982, the Equal Rights Amendment deadline expired with the number of state ratifications at 35, not counting rescissions.
George W.
Thanks for the info. It looks like the states didn’t get a right to rescind their ratifications as they wanted. Since they wanted to rescind their ratifications without clear authority from the constitution. They sought a right to do so from congress. That right was rejected by congress which means those states who did vote to rescind their ratifications have no real authority to do so. Interesting.
“Mississippi ratified the 13th amendment 130 years AFTER it was adopted. “
The thirteenth Amendment was already passed and Mississippi had nothing to do with its adoption. Why do you think this applies to the ERA? It had no bearing on the Federal Constitution. Where do you get these crazy ideas?
Anonymous,
I mentioned Mississippi because despite the 13th already being adopted it was still able to ratify it. The Mississippi legislature voted unanimously to ratify the 13th amendment in 1994, BUT, it too another 20 years to finish the official process. Mississippi state officials failed to send the official documentation to the federal register so the documentation was not formally filed as required. Nearly 20 years later, in late 2012, two Mississippi residents discovered that the ratification was not yet official and notified the Secretary of State. Several weeks later, the required paperwork was filed, and Mississippi’s ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment was legally recorded on February 7, 2013.
This illustrates the point that ratifications don’t become nullified or void because some technical limitation was missed.
The question still is whether a ratification is void just because a deadline is missed. Even the law that set the deadline didn’t explicitly say all the ratifications are repealed or void after the deadline.
“I mentioned Mississippi because despite the 13th already being adopted it was still able to ratify it.”
Again, you demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the Constitution and the founding of the Republic. Some states didn’t accept the Constitution until after it was a done deal. Mississippi was bound by the 13th whether they liked it or not. What have you proven? Nothing except that you need to read more.
Here is a free course: https://online.hillsdale.edu/landing/constitution-101https://online.hillsdale.edu/landing/constitution-101
Anonymous (S. Meyer), I see you’re still having trouble with your poor reading comprehension skills therefore missing the entire point I was making.
Good grief man, it’s not shameful to just say I don’t get it. Instead you try too hard to appear smart and knowledgeable by hurling insults and making asinine explanations with irrelevant points.
I’d hate to say it but, clearly you’re too stupid to understand what you are trying to argue. That’s why the majority of your posts involve insults and ad hominem, and a whole lot of projecting.
Your points were based on erroneous assumptions. Logic doesn’t exist in your head.
Learn the basics of the Constitution and you won’t sound like such an idiot.
6 States revoked their ratification before reaching the minimum threshold. Nice try though.
Ivan,
Article V of the Constitution speaks only to the states’ power to ratify an amendment but not to the power to rescind a ratification. All precedents concerning state rescissions of ratifications indicate that such actions are not valid and that the constitutional amendment process as described in Article V allows only for ratification.
It seems once a state ratifies an amendment it cannot recind it. Especially after it was voted on. That may explain why there’s no time limit on ratifications. A state either refuses or approves. Mississippi is a good example. It didn’t choose to ratify the 13th amendment until 130 years after it was adopted.
“It seems once a state ratifies an amendment it cannot recind it.”
This guy has dreams of being a comedian.
Anonymous, show me where in any state constitution, statutes, or the constitution explicitly gives a state the ability to rescind a ratification?
Again, you don’t understand the basic idea behind the Constitution nor what our forefathers were looking for. Get educated elsewhere. You have been told the answer many times by many different people. You don’t listen or attempt to think about what others are saying. That is why you repeat yourself and never move forward.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ Get educated elsewhere. You have been told the answer many times by many different people. ”
Nobody has given any answers to my very basic request. Show me where in any state constitution, statutes, or the constitution explicitly gives a state the ability to rescind a ratification?
I have to repeat myself because nobody has provided an answer despite your lie that others have. Can’t move forward until an actual answer is provided. None has so far. If I missed it then provide it. It shouldn’t be too hard.
Sevvy:
“Nobody has given any answers to my very basic request. Show me where in any state constitution, statutes, or the constitution explicitly gives a state the ability to rescind a ratification?”
***************************************
You’ll find it right next to the provision that says a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. It’s not codified; it’s English Common Law that a sovereign (government) may act, not act or repeal a prior action. Kay v. Goodwin (1830) 6 Bing. 576, per Tindal C.J.
Mespo, problem is that the definition of English common law which is a body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established by the courts. What legal precedents regarding rescinding a ratification that have been established by the courts exist? Can you find any, ANY legal precedents regarding any state legislature rescinding a ratification?
Funny thing is that there would first have to be a case where a state successfully rescinded a ratification in order for a court to set a precedent. So, there is no common law codifying a state’s ability to rescind a ratification.
“Nobody has given any answers to my very basic request.”
You start your request in the middle, after making a fool of yourself with regard to what the Constitution ***DOES*** and *DOESN’T* do. You have been told but are too stupid to listen and adjust your arguments accordingly..
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ You start your request in the middle, after making a fool of yourself with regard to what the Constitution ***DOES*** and *DOESN’T* do. You have been told but are too stupid to listen and adjust your arguments accordingly..”
S. Meyer, what does “starting a request in the middle” have anything to do with the ability to answer the request. It’s quite simple. Nobody has told me anything about my request at all including you.
Show me any state constitutional law, statute, or federal law that deals with a state’s authority to rescind a ratification. Just one would suffice.
You’re clearly deflecting by hurling insults and ad hominems because you can’t produce the piece of information that would validate your argument. You keep saying you have told me. So it would be very easy to post your answer. What law or statute did you show me? I’ll wait.
Show me any state constitutional law, statute, or federal law that deals with a state’s authority to rescind a ratification. Just one would suffice.
You’re clearly deflecting by hurling insults and ad hominems because you can’t produce the piece of information that would validate your argument. You keep saying you have told me. So it would be very easy to post your answer. What law or statute did you show me? I’ll wait.
======
Like the discussion on Covid vaccine approvals, you keep making requests that are provided and you instantaneously forget about. Mespo just provided you with another rationale and you forgot that as well.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/21/the-other-big-lie-democrats-fuel-doubts-over-the-legitimacy-of-the-coming-elections/comment-page-1/#comment-2153325
Why should anyone provide you anything? We should let you rot until you figure it out yourself.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ Like the discussion on Covid vaccine approvals, you keep making requests that are provided and you instantaneously forget about. Mespo just provided you with another rationale and you forgot that as well.”
You’re deflecting again, obviously. You don’t provide anything despite claiming you do. It would be so easy for you to provide the answers you claim you provided. You’re just lying about providing the answers because you don’t have them.
“ Mespo just provided you with another rationale and you forgot that as well.”
He didn’t provide what I asked plus I showed him how his rationale still didn’t answer my request.
Come on S. Meyer you can provide the specific answers to my specific request that you claim you and others provided.
Here it is again. Show me a state constitutional law or statute, or federal law or statute authorizing a state’s legal ability to rescind a constitutional ratification.
I guarantee you will simply deflect by lying that you already provided the answer. I’ll wait. I’ve got all day.
Svelaz – if a legislature can authorize something, they can deauthorize it. For instance, when Arizona wanted to become a state, their constitution was not recognized because it contained recall of judges. So, they took it out and finally became a state. Then they immediately put it back in.
Paul, a rescission vote is not the same as an amendment, even though they sometimes have a similar legal impact of nullifying something.
A state legislature can rescind a vote before a statute, amendment, etc. takes effect, but the legislature cannot rescind its vote after it takes effect. That’s why the 18th Amendment couldn’t be eliminated by states rescinding their individual state votes ratifying it: the 18th Amendment had already been ratified by 3/4 of the states and had taken effect. Instead, the Constitution had to be amended again to repeal the 18th Amendment. The AZ Constitution had already been ratified, and the legislature didn’t rescind the section allowing judges to be recalled. They amended the AZ Constitution to remove the judiciary recall provision, and then as you note, they later amended the AZ Constitution again to enable judges to be recalled.
Rescission is possible here because the ERA was not yet ratified when the rescission votes took place.
Anonymous – if the SC can find a right to abort babies in the Constitution, legislatures can find the right to rescind.
“You’re deflecting again,”
No I am showing what happens when another provides what is asked for multiple times. Nothing. Why respond to a person like that . To permit you to think about what my point is I will copy a previous email. It is an example of how worthless it is to deal with you. Several people told me that earlier and they were right.
—
Svelaz writes: “Again, you provided no documentation at all. You still haven’t. You “don’t feel obligated” because you never provided them in the first place and you can’t find it. You’re just covering for your BS claim.”
Here are a couple of locations where I mentioned the address of the FDA report. This proves you don’t know what you are talking about.
In the first one, I copied your statement, which is what is being argued about and is completely wrong,
You said: “All the current vaccines have been granted full approval. ”
Below is one of the many FDA postings I made. I believe others have posted FDA sites as well
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/03/new-york-announces-that-scarce-covid-19-treatments-will-be-prioritized-for-non-white-patients/comment-page-1/#comment-2148321
In the second of the posts, I showed one of the reasons Pfizer might like this legal distinction.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/03/new-york-announces-that-scarce-covid-19-treatments-will-be-prioritized-for-non-white-patients/comment-page-3/#comment-2148317
I posted other things from the FDA with their addresses, and much of what I said was pure quotes from the FDA.
This proves you to be what everyone knows you to be. You were wrong again, and it isn’t just about Covid. You have been proven wrong repeatedly on a multiplicity of subjects where proof has been provided. You deny the truth and the proof provided even when it is on the same official papers you have posted.
Paul, I’ve more than once noted that legislatures CAN rescind a vote, as long as what they voted for (legislation, an amendment, etc.) has not yet taken effect. That’s the case with the ERA: the rescission votes came before the ERA was ratified by the states.
As for abortion, do you disagree that bodily autonomy as one of our unenumerated rights?
If I need a bone marrow transplant to save my life and you have matching bone marrow, the government cannot demand that you donate your marrow to save my life. It’s up to you to make that decision. Do you think the government should be able to demand that? The government can’t even force you to do something as quick and relatively complicationless/side-effect-free as donating blood to save someone’s life. Likewise, the government should not be able to demand that a woman donate the use of her body to save the life of an embryo. Because that’s what pregnancy is: it’s the woman donating the use of her gastrointestinal and cardiovascular systems to get nutrition to the embryo, donating the use of her respiratory and cardiovascular systems to get oxygen to the embryo and carry away CO2, … All pregnancies negatively affect the woman’s health, sometimes only in relatively minor ways like backaches and nausea (though these are much more significant than the ways in which donating blood affects someone) and sometimes in more serious ways (possibly causing her death). If you’re anti-abortion, why do you believe that pregnant women should have less control over the use of their bodies than everyone else?
Anonymous – since the baby also has rights, you do not have the right to kill it.
Paul,
No, an embryo does not have any rights. An embryo is not a person, and biologically, the majority of embryos never even have the capacity to develop into people; most embryos die before even implanting.
Certainly the Constitution doesn’t say that an embryo has rights, the Founders didn’t suggest that an embryo has rights, and SCOTUS has never ruled that an embryo has rights. The legal argument about abortion has always been between the rights of the state and the rights of the pregnant woman. If you think I’m wrong about any of that, please do say where you think the Constitution, Founders, or SCOTUS have ever said otherwise.
What rights do you believe an embryo has? (Make sure that your claim applies to all embryos, including IVF embryos, embryos in ectopic pregnancies, etc.)
PCS, it’s not a right in the Constitution. The Constitution omits, leaving that power to States. It’s not a decision by the SC. The SC should have beeb impeached and convicted for its centuries of adversity toward the Constitution long, long ago.
“Show me where in any state constitution, statutes, or the constitution explicitly gives a state the ability to rescind” a *non*-ratification. (See Virginia, Nevada, and Illinois)
Goose meet gander.
Svez,
Your argument that any proposed amendment never dies and that once a State ratifies they can not rescind is clearly illogical. After thousands of years you would naturally see States ratify and then change their minds at some point, but if only the ratification counts then you just have to wait long enough for enough States to have voted at some point(over thousands of years) in favor of the proposed amendment.
The FACT that the amendment you wish to certify has not been certified stands as prima facie evidence that you are wrong. Good luck.
Ivan,
“ Your argument that any proposed amendment never dies and that once a State ratifies they can not rescind is clearly illogical.”
Logically you would have to show what law, constitutional, federal, or state specifically addresses the authority to rescind a ratification.
Currently the constitution only deals with the process of ratification and the minimum number of states required for an amendment to be officially on the constitution. There’s nothing about rescinding a ratification. The only way to actually rescind a ratification would be for congress to propose a repeal to remove the amendment. This happened with the 18th amendment. Congress had to pass the 21st amendment repealing the 18th.
States can only ratify or reject a proposed amendment. Once it’s been voted to ratify there really is no mechanism legally to rescind the ratification. If there were there would be state statutes or state constitutional clauses specifically for rescinding ratification. There are no such laws on the books.
You repeat yourself without researching what about half a dozen people told you. James was right, but perhaps it would be best to call you a special person. That is a nice way of explaining severe intellectual deficits exist.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ You repeat yourself without researching what about half a dozen people told you. James was right, but perhaps it would be best to call you a special person. That is a nice way of explaining severe intellectual deficits exist.”
There aren’t half a dozen people posting on this thread. None have provided an answer to my query. Show me any state constitution, statute, federal law that explicitly deals with the authority to rescind a ratification.
George W. Actually provided a very good example of proof that there isn’t a legal mechanism for states to rescind a ratification. When congress was considering extending the deadline to ratify the ERA to 1982 states that wanted to rescind their ratifications wanted to include in the law extending the deadline the right for states to rescind their ratification. That alone is proof that states did not have the authority to rescind their ratification. They had to have congress give them the right. Congress rejected it. States that voted to rescind their ratifications without that congressional approval did not have authority.
Perhaps it should be YOU who needs to do more research OR you could just provide the state statutes or state constitutional law that gives them authority to rescind a constitutional amendment ratification. You should have no problem providing it.
George W. provided other things, but not everything is entirely clear in life. On the other hand, you don’t recognize how the Constitution works, so your mind cannot utilize anything GW said. It misses essential information.
Every discussion goes back to the same basic points where you lack understanding despite the number of people point that point it out and how many times you are told. You are ‘special,’ so we don’t expect you to learn.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ George W. provided other things, but not everything is entirely clear in life…”
LOL!!! S. Meyer, Provided other things?
He provided direct confirmation that states have no authority to rescind a ratification. It is you who has a reading comprehension problem not I.
The fact that you can’t bring yourself to articulate what George posted is proof that you cannot bring yourself to delve into the substance of what George W. Posted. I doubt you even got to read the whole post.
I’m George W’s post why did states want congress to put into law the right to rescind a ratification? Can you explain that? If they had to ask congress wouldn’t it make sense that they knew they didn’t have laws if their own to do so?
You are wrong and once again you start in the middle and add things that are not proof only argumen of assumptions.
You don’t get it.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ You are wrong and once again you start in the middle and add things that are not proof only argumen of assumptions.”
Again, you can’t articulate what George W. posted because you can’t bring yourself to actually discuss the substance of George W’s post.
Just saying I’m wrong without offering proof of why isn’t an argument. What middle are you talking about, you make no sense.
You don’t get it.
Turley– “The question is whether raw politics is enough to shock the unratified and undead into life.”
+++
Why not? They already vote. Democrat of course.
The text of the ERA:
Section 1: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3: This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
The most significant question is: why have so many states been unwilling to ratify this in a timely manner?
“The most significant question is: why have so many states been unwilling to ratify this in a timely manner?”
+++
Possibly because people have noticed that Congress, and particularly administrative agencies armed with the Chevron doctrine, have grossly abused nearly every power granted to the federal government.
Constitution ?? . . WHAT Constitution ?? Apparently, the Democrats have simply torn up THEIR copy of our sacred document, preferring to instead just declare anything they desire as a ‘ done deal ‘ !!
Jonathan, there is still time for you to leave the Democrat party. They aren’t the party you remember anymore. They are Marxists who want to rule over everybody.
Wen Bars begs:
“Jonathan, there is still time for you to leave the Democrat party. They aren’t the party you remember anymore. They are Marxists who want to rule over everybody.”
Sorry, Wen, Turley is a NeverTrumper. Remember, he called your leader a “carnival snake charmer.” You don’t take back those kind of words. He will never see things the way you do. He does not lie like a Trumpist.
I can imagine what he is calling the delusional fraud that got installed with fraudulent mail in voting. If you want to take down America…do EXACTLY what Biden is doing.
Equal rights. All things being equal. Male sex dong or female hole in the wall don’t blame one for going at the other.
These efforts have one thing in common: They avoid having the issues addressed by the voters directly or by the states.
Here is the entire sum and substance, to this post by Prof. Turley, and the Democrat Party.
This is Basic Civics. The Flow chart of power, in a Constitutional Republic
People: We are sovereign and all power emanates from the people.
States: Created by the sovereign. And the controling force of the Federal government.
Democrats spend 99% of their energy subverting the will of the People.
(now if we could just get SCOTUS to understand)
Dems do the same with treaties. Just declare is so. Ratification by the Senate? Nope, not required. To add to that, the Courts support the illusion. President Trump, removed the United States from the Paris climate accords and the Iran deal. The court ruled that there was a years long procedure to pull from a treaty that was never ratified. A President can join any agreement he wishes. But it only binds his administration, Not a future administration.
Democrats ALWAYS fail to advance their ideas through open debate and congressional actions. Democrats fail to represent the people that put them in office.
OMG JT are you nuts? 38 states ratified it. The voters did get a say and so did 38 states. One can have the opinion that the deadline matters and it is not ratified. Or you could think that it is ratified. But to cry about Ds ignoring democracy is insane.
What you say is untrue because there was both a timeline for ratification and states can reverse their initial decisions. Nothing stops such an amendment from being reintroduced and going through the process again. Leftists like to twist the law or ignore it and the Constitution entirely. They are not compliant with the rule of law.
Dude. The Republicans did the first attempted coup in US history, and they think killing black people is a valid past time. Republicans are lawless fascist who will spend eternity being bugged by devils.
The above comment demonstrates the ignorance of the Stupid and is a comment by Anonymous the Stupid. Sammy and ATS are the same and are identical to Molly G. and Edison, which Sammy also used under this icon. Addresses with their names and identical icon follow. ATS likes to pretend he is different people.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/06/destroying-a-democracy-to-save-it-democrats-call-for-the-disqualification-of-dozens-of-republican-members/comment-page-1/#comment-2149066
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/03/tick-tick-tick-the-supreme-court-readies-an-explosive-docket-for-2022/comment-page-1/#comment-2148119
You are a racist wishing to put black people in their place. You want to tell them what and how to do it. I believe blacks are no different from whites and will handle their lives better if you stay out of their affairs. Statistics demonstrate the damage you and your ilk have done to black people and the nation.
When you wish to use the term fascist, first learn what a fascist is since you don’t know and have never known. Almost all of the significant things you defend are fascist in nature or worse. You even believed fascism was good for the little people at one time.
Meyer the Troll lies that “Sammy and ATS are the same.”
Meyer the Troll refers to several anonymous commenters as ATS, when Meyer the Troll’s anonymous comments reveal that he is the true ATS.
Meyer the Troll has previously assumed that Svelaz and an anonymous commenter were the same person.
Meyer the Troll has previously assumed that Bug is the same commenter as one of the people Meyer calls ATS
Meyer the Troll cannot tell people apart, but likes to delude himself into thinking he can.
Anonymous the Stupid, you screwed up and fouled Sammy’s name as you did green anonymous and multiple other pretend friends you used to weigh in as support for your erroneous ideas.
I never assumed Svelaz was Anonymous the Stupid. He has a different writing style. I made a mistake once in responding and explained it immediately. You build on lies, and I don’t. You are not credible. I am.
I never called Bug, Anonymous the Stupid, unless it was the generic icon without his usual signature (Bug, Elvis Bug, EB and several others that were banned). I may have made an error or two, But mostly I am correct. Get a unique icon and name if you do not wish to be misidentified.
What is clear is that you do not want to be fact-checked, so you continue to use a generic anonymous to hide your lies and errors.
“I may have made an error or two”
You’ve made scores of errors, perhaps hundreds. You made an error in this very column, yet you will not admit it.
You are the one fouling people’s names with your trolling.
You apparently think that someone’s name or icon affects fact-checking, which demonstrates that you are the true ATS.
Anonymous the stupid, your problem is that when you felt I made an error, generally I proved you wrong or illogical.
“You apparently think that someone’s name or icon affects fact-checking.”
I have seen your type of fact-checking—no critical thinking skills.
Meyer, you’re a troll who endlessly projects his own faults onto others.
Anonymous the Stupid, you live up to your name.
Meyer-posting-anonymously: you are the one and only ATS.
Sammy wrote, “The Republicans did the first attempted coup in US history, and they think killing black people is a valid past time. Republicans are lawless fascist who will spend eternity being bugged by devils.”
Posting comments like that prove to us that you’re an ignorant internet troll.
Anonymous,
“What you say is untrue because there was both a timeline for ratification and states can reverse their initial decisions.”
There is no legal mechanism for states to reverse their decision. The amendment is still in play and since the minimum number of states have already ratified the amendment it should be a done deal. The deadline issue shouldn’t be a barrier due to the fact that the constitution doesn’t authorize congress to set time limits on ratification. States themselves have no state constitutional laws or statutes allowing them to rescind a ratification.
The 18th amendment had to be repealed by issuing another amendment. States couldn’t just rescind their ratification and make an amendment null and void. There is a clear process and simply rescinding a ratification is not the legal way to doing it.
The biggest reason why there is no time limit or shouldn’t be is because states are given all the time they need to seriously consider their position on any amendment. It is after all a piece of law that is part of the supreme law of the land. It’s either, “you agree or not” It’s not something that you get to be all wishy-washy over it. Each state arrives at it’s own conclusion on it’s own and once they make their decision they cannot reverse it. It forces states to be really certain about their decision and I think that is the intent behind the whole no time limit on deciding whether to ratify or not.
“The 18th amendment had to be repealed by issuing another amendment. States couldn’t just rescind their ratification and make an amendment null and void. ”
The 18th Amendment had already become part of the Constitution by virtue of having been ratified by 3/4 of the states. An individual state cannot rescind their individual ratification vote after the Amendment has been ratified by 3/4s of the states and takes effect. But that’s not the situation here: states rescinded their votes **prior to** the proposed amendment having been ratified by 3/4 of the states and therefore prior to the amendment taking effect. The two situations aren’t analogous.
Democrat party? There’s no longer a Democrat party, there’s one party and they aren’t all that great either. What exists of the Democrat party are small bands of Marxist, hater’s, and opportunists. Right now you have maybe 2 leftovers of the original Democrat party. The demise started slowly and Barry put in full gear.
The Republicans are still there (maybe) but they for some reason have no ballene’s. An outsider came in gave them a year of do whatever and they did zip.
Has anyone noticed that not so much as a whisper is discussed about the southern border in weeks. Ah, the administration erected the wall and enforcing immigration law, not.
It’s the Democratic Party. Your inability to even name it using its actual name speaks volumes.
The parallels to the Carter days are downright spooky at this point, except this time it is all being done by dems perfectly willfully and largely out in the open. This cannot be labeled anything but authoritarian. We thought the behaviors leading up to 2020 by the DNC were nefarious? Brace yourselves. The real dirty tricks, contempt, and derision will be from now to November, and 2016 – 2020 will look like child’s play. The modern dem party has nothing resembling soul or conscience remaining.
“The parallels to the Carter days are downright spooky . . .”
That’s unfair to Carter. He was merely incompetent. The Biden administration is actively destructive (and pathologically dishonest).
Obama was the first anti-American president. Biden makes him look like a patriot.
“Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin: The names of great constitutional figures are etched in the minds of every schoolchild.”
You forgot one name that even athletes recite before they enter the arena to compete: Brandon
Democrats believe that they have the power to “declare” a Constitutional Amendment because they are entirely ignorant of the US Constitution. This ignorance is destroying American civil discourse and the city on a hill. Democrats don’t believe in our democratic republic, our Constitution, or even common sense. (I mean if you believe you can declare a boy a girl despite clear scientific evidence you believe can pull the wool over anybody’s eyes)
That’s the thing – the DNC’s leaders aren’t ignorant. They know exactly what they are doing. They don’t care, and in their hubris are absolutely convinced the rest of us can be cut off at the knees.
Why not just go straight to mob rule, erect the guillotines and proceed as a replay of the French Revolution? There is little hope of saving this nation by constitutional means at this point; almost every institution provided by the constitution has been corrupted and polluted. Radical change is required and heaven help us if we can muster enough Americans to restore what our founding fathers gave us.
Nothing of ‘Original’ origins comes out of this Political Era we live in.
Original Jurisprudence is Dead in the Water.
‘Socio Economic Calculus’ has been Canceled.
This is the Era of:
” Boob-Tube Socio-Economic Voodoo “
Remember, the left cares not a wit about procedure. it is all about power
Lefties are starting to act like the Mad Hatter.
I always love your posts, but Mad Hatter? No, we have gone far, far, beyond that. The mad Hatter was a seriously conscious being compared to todays’ ‘Dems’. Those comparisons are no longer relevant; CRT, #Putinhike (if you haven’t abandoned Twitter at this pit, no one can help), Jen Psaki and her bad hair, Hunter, the Ukraine and why we are strangely unable to do anything, because the ‘Big guy’ might be exposed – these are truths that are quite literally unfolding before our eyes. The Professor’s Constitutional approach, nobler as it is, doesn’t make a whit difference to the party he still inexplicably clings to, somehow equally he thinks is still about a black person getting a drink at water fountain;. i do not know what to say, and i do not know how to help, given dems the ability too see that human problems defy class, race, and circumstance. Because every last dang one of us is human and humanity transcends every single one of their selfish talking points. And preemptively: Svelaz and Natacha can go to h*ll. Tools, which you are, are for hammering nails, not deciding the fate of hundreds of millions. We are here and we oppose you in a greater numbers than your imagine. What will you do when your millennial supporters reach the limit of the bank of mom and dad? and how fully pathetic are you tyhat you let people likely half your age dictate your morals or intelligence? Pfft. You are clowns, and not in the good sense. Go back on Facebook and enjoy your denial.
The Democrat party has a long history, and in the 1840’s referred to itself as the Democracy. When I see references to their cries to defend democracy, my immediate thought is that they are simply trying to stay the demise of their party and to perpetuate their tenuous hold on the power of government, regardless of the deleterious impact on the body politic
Yup, Whig, that. We are seeing ego-fueled desperation by our Dems that has ceased to simply border on insanity.