President Biden’s attempt to declare the Equal Rights Amendment as law through executive action has sparked controversy and debate over constitutional integrity.
At a Glance
- Biden’s declaration of the ERA as the 28th Amendment faces legal challenges
- The ERA failed to meet ratification deadlines in the past
- Critics argue the move weakens constitutional processes
- Concerns raised about potential impacts on existing laws and policies
- The administration acknowledges the declaration lacks legal force
Biden’s Controversial ERA Declaration
President Biden has stirred controversy by attempting to declare the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution, despite its failure to be ratified within the required timeframe. The ERA, which aimed to ensure equal rights regardless of sex, fell short of the necessary approval from three-fourths of state legislatures over four decades ago. This move has been criticized as an overreach of executive power and a potential threat to constitutional integrity.
“I affirm what I believe and what three-fourths of the states have ratified: the 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex,” Biden said.
However, legal experts and critics argue that this declaration is not only legally ineffective but also represents an attempt to circumvent established constitutional processes.
Is he crazy?
Legal and Constitutional Challenges
The ERA’s journey through the ratification process has been long and contentious. Passed by Congress in 1972, it initially failed to meet the ratification deadline, even after an extension. Recent attempts by states like Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia to ratify the expired amendment have been deemed legally irrelevant by constitutional scholars.
“In 2020 and again in 2022, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice affirmed that the ratification deadline established by Congress for the ERA is valid and enforceable,” one archivist stated.
Critics of the ERA argue that its implementation could have far-reaching and unintended consequences. There are concerns that it might eliminate beneficial distinctions between men and women, such as exemptions from Selective Service for women or specific protections for pregnant women in the workplace. Additionally, some fear that the ERA could be used as a legal basis to enforce nationwide abortion rights and gender identity policies, potentially overriding state laws and existing federal regulations.
The debate surrounding President Biden’s ERA declaration highlights the ongoing tension between executive action and legislative processes in shaping constitutional law. While supporters view it as a step towards equality, opponents see it as a dangerous precedent that could weaken the foundational principles of American governance.