georgia is not likely to be the 38th state to ratify the ERA for a few reasons, but that hasn't stopped a bipartisan push there in the state senate from going forward. this is one of a few paths...
georgia is not likely to be the 38th state to ratify the ERA for a few reasons, but that hasn't stopped a bipartisan push there in the state senate from going forward. this is one of a few paths this year ratification could take, with two others in arizona ratifying as democrats have been trying to push this month, or virginia ratifying (which is probably only delayed at worst given the likelihood of democrats taking both the house and senate in that state in this year's elections).
in any case, it's not clear if whoever ratifies next is the actual 38th state. for one thing, most states that ratified have sunset provisions for their bills which would probably be challenged; for another thing, four states have unratified (which the constitution says nothing about the validity of), and one of those unratifications was vetoed (yet another thing the constitution says nothing about). the next state to ratify as a consequence is most likely going to set up an extensive and convoluted legal battle over whether or not the ERA can go into effect at all or if one of these several complications will necessitate more states ratifying it, some congressional action, or something else to allow it to go into effect.
presumably, that would be a reflection of the ERA having a deadline (which was then extended) to ratify by. most states that ratified refer to said deadline and so in practice put what in practice...
presumably, that would be a reflection of the ERA having a deadline (which was then extended) to ratify by. most states that ratified refer to said deadline and so in practice put what in practice might be interpreted as a sunset on their ratification (and south dakota did so explicitly).
that i could not tell you other than that some amendments get proposed with certain limits of time on ratification (which may or may not be enforceable, that's another thing that the constitution...
that i could not tell you other than that some amendments get proposed with certain limits of time on ratification (which may or may not be enforceable, that's another thing that the constitution doesn't seem to really speak on), and some do not like the 27th amendment which was proposed in 1789 but wasn't ratified until 1992 because no time limit on it was set
I feel like at this point the ERA is kind of outdated, and would be best if updated to include sexuality, gender identity, and race (how was that not there in the first place?). However, since the...
I feel like at this point the ERA is kind of outdated, and would be best if updated to include sexuality, gender identity, and race (how was that not there in the first place?).
However, since the ERA as it is has already passed a lot of the hurdles of an Amendment, I guess it's the best we can get without restarting that whole process. That is if all the issues above get sorted out.
i think that would end up requiring either an entirely new ratification process or something that might as well be one, since i'm guessing the states that have ratified the ERA would not be able...
I feel like at this point the ERA is kind of outdated, and would be best if updated to include sexuality, gender identity, and race (how was that not there in the first place?).
However, since the ERA as it is has already passed a lot of the hurdles of an Amendment, I guess it's the best we can get without restarting that whole process. That is if all the issues above get sorted out.
i think that would end up requiring either an entirely new ratification process or something that might as well be one, since i'm guessing the states that have ratified the ERA would not be able to update their interpretation of the ERA to reflect that suggestion. also in practice, that would be sorta redundant to the 14th amendment's equal protection clause which is generally interpreted as either covering those things already or having come to cover those things (and was instrumental in how obergefell v. hodges was ruled as a consequence)
georgia is not likely to be the 38th state to ratify the ERA for a few reasons, but that hasn't stopped a bipartisan push there in the state senate from going forward. this is one of a few paths this year ratification could take, with two others in arizona ratifying as democrats have been trying to push this month, or virginia ratifying (which is probably only delayed at worst given the likelihood of democrats taking both the house and senate in that state in this year's elections).
in any case, it's not clear if whoever ratifies next is the actual 38th state. for one thing, most states that ratified have sunset provisions for their bills which would probably be challenged; for another thing, four states have unratified (which the constitution says nothing about the validity of), and one of those unratifications was vetoed (yet another thing the constitution says nothing about). the next state to ratify as a consequence is most likely going to set up an extensive and convoluted legal battle over whether or not the ERA can go into effect at all or if one of these several complications will necessitate more states ratifying it, some congressional action, or something else to allow it to go into effect.
What was the rationale behind the sunset provisions? Just seems pretty bizarre.
presumably, that would be a reflection of the ERA having a deadline (which was then extended) to ratify by. most states that ratified refer to said deadline and so in practice put what in practice might be interpreted as a sunset on their ratification (and south dakota did so explicitly).
So why did the ERA have a deadline then? I wasn't aware of that being a thing for amendments.
that i could not tell you other than that some amendments get proposed with certain limits of time on ratification (which may or may not be enforceable, that's another thing that the constitution doesn't seem to really speak on), and some do not like the 27th amendment which was proposed in 1789 but wasn't ratified until 1992 because no time limit on it was set
I feel like at this point the ERA is kind of outdated, and would be best if updated to include sexuality, gender identity, and race (how was that not there in the first place?).
However, since the ERA as it is has already passed a lot of the hurdles of an Amendment, I guess it's the best we can get without restarting that whole process. That is if all the issues above get sorted out.
i think that would end up requiring either an entirely new ratification process or something that might as well be one, since i'm guessing the states that have ratified the ERA would not be able to update their interpretation of the ERA to reflect that suggestion. also in practice, that would be sorta redundant to the 14th amendment's equal protection clause which is generally interpreted as either covering those things already or having come to cover those things (and was instrumental in how obergefell v. hodges was ruled as a consequence)