Bad Education: New York Spends BILLIONS on Public Schools for Results Like THIS
Fauxcahontas Leads Senate Dems in Shakedown of Tech Bros for GOP Donation
Let's Imagine the Dem/Media Reaction If Trump Invokes 'Biden Rule' for Changing the...
Donald Trump's Inauguration Moved Indoors Thanks to All the Global Warming Descending on...
Kamala Harris Applauds Biden's New 'Law of the Land' and This Just Keeps...
Axios CEO Jim VandeHei Is Very Unhappy the Left Will Have a Hard...
Not So Fast! Kirsten Gillibrand DRAGGED for Premature Victory Lap on the Equal...
BREAKING: Supreme Court Makes Decision on TikTok ‘Ban’
ZERO Credibility: CBS Asks Why Wildfire Conspiracy Theories Are Going Viral and X...
What Jim Acosta Said Yesterday vs. Today's Verdict About CNN Is Shot/Chaser GOLD
Try Not to Laugh at Lawyer's Argument Against CNN Having to Pay Punitive...
'CAN'T Be Serious'! John Harwood Uses This Democrat to Prove Biden DOESN'T...
BREAKING: Jury Finds CNN LIABLE for Defamation Against Zachary Young and His Operations...
Joe Concha Spots 'Perfect Encapsulation of Media Mindset' As Journos Gear Up for...
List of Who's NOT Attending Trump's Inauguration Says SO MUCH About Who Trump...

BREAKING: Lame Duck Biden Attempts to Declare That the Equal Rights Amendment Is Ratified

Mandel Ngan/Pool via AP

Well, this is pretty dictator-like of Biden:

Advertisement

This is not the first time Democrats have tried to engage in underhanded tactics to cause this amendment to be deemed ratified. We wrote about a previous attempt by Democrats in the Senate to try to do so, here. We went into a lot more detail in that post, but we will hit the highlights, here.

First, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment says the following:

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.

SEC. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

SEC. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

This proposed amendment was sent to the states after two thirds of both houses of Congress approved of it, but they did so with a requirement that it is not ratified unless it received the appropriate approval of three fourths of the states within seven years. That period expired in the 1970’s without the amendment receiving a sufficient number of state ratifications.

Since then, additional states have purported to ratify it and, crucially, other states have withdrawn their ratification. In 2020, Virginia purported to be the final state to ratify it, except that is only true if you believe 1) Congress can’t limit how long it takes for an amendment to be ratified and 2) no state can withdraw approval before final ratification. As we said the last time they tried this nonsense:

Advertisement

Whatever one feels about the ERA, this is wrong. In the view of the advocates for the ERA no time limit is valid and no vote to rescind any ratification is allowed. By that logic, Article V of the Constitution, which is supposed to make it difficult to amend the Constitution, is turned into an almost inevitable process once an amendment is proposed. After all, if America lasts one thousand years, then it is almost inevitable that any proposed amendment will become part of the Constitution, however ill-advised. After all, you would only need thirty-eight states to say ‘yes,’ once in that thousand-year period.

It is also fundamentally unfair. How many state politicians voted to ratify the amendment not because they actually believed in it, but because they correctly estimated that it would never be ratified in seven years and therefore it was safe to pretend they supported it? Would the resolution even make it out of Congress without the time limit on ratification?

In other words, there are good reasons to oppose this move that have nothing to do with whether you want to see this amendment ratified.

We would also note that our prior post also analyzed whether or not the amendment was a good idea. This author thinks it is a terrible idea, at least as it is written, particularly because (among other things) it would probably be read to abolish separate restrooms, locker rooms, sports leagues and so on, for men and women, and because it might even be read as making abortion a Constitutional right. As they say, read the whole thing (please).

Advertisement

In any case, returning to Biden’s post on Twitter/X (or, more likely, Biden’s intern’s post), we will note that sometimes we see a Community Note that notes the obvious legal problems with anyone claiming the Equal Rights Amendment to be ratified. We would further add that Article V of the Constitution doesn’t give the President any official role in deciding if an amendment is ratified or not. It is either ratified or not.

Further, the fact that Joe Biden is attempting to do this creates another legal problem. As we wrote here, there is a real question of whether or not Biden is competent to do anything as president at any given moment, given his obvious mental decline. If Biden was an ordinary citizen and he purported to sign a contract or to create a will, those documents would be subject to challenge based on the theory that he was not mentally competent to take those actions and we don’t see why his actions as President should be treated differently.

Additionally, Biden has put out a press release stating that the American Bar Association (ABA) agrees with him:

And we checked, and, yes, they seem to have done so. Bear in mind, however that the ABA is just a voluntary lawyers club with no official power. Don’t get this confused with an actual government agency such the Virginia State Bar which actually controls who has the right to practice law and regulates the professional conduct of lawyers.

Advertisement

As usual, Turley is on it:

The cut off text:

‘In keeping with my oath and duty to Constitution and country, 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.’

The cut off text:

It is another example of using any means to achieve outcomes, even having a unilateral declaration of a rejected constitutional amendment...

But, of course, we expect there to be a lawsuit very soon claiming that the Equal Rights Amendment is indeed part of the Constitution. So, at the very least, the American people will have to foot the bill for at least one frivolous suit.

Advertisement

Our own Calvin also shares this amazingly clueless discussion from the West Wing:

When we say this discussion is clueless, we don’t just mean that the ultra-liberal liberals who wrote for the West Wing don’t understand the conservative view on this. That is to be expected. We mean that they don’t understand the difference between laws and Constitutional Amendments. For instance, equal pay in the private sector would not be affected by this proposed amendment—the proposed amendment would apply only to government action. Furthermore, when the blond woman is speaking, she doesn’t know there is an equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment that applies to women. Honestly, the clip made our brain hurt.

Advertisement

In any case, this a breaking news story, and surely there will be more commentary as we go on.

RELATED: WATCH: Trump Reveals What Obama ‘Really’ Said to Him at Carter's Funeral (LOL)

WATCH: Wikipedia Co-Founder Describes How the Site Turned to Leftist Garbage

‘Banality of Evil:’ J.K. Rowling Roasts a Paper on Transgender Ideology Trumping Medical Ethics

Joe Biden’s Potential Incompetence Threatens Chaos in Our System (And We Should Embrace the Chaos)

Ana Navarro-Cárdenas Gets Wrecked on Bad Pardon History (And Let’s Talk about Hunter’s Pardon)

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement