Biden Attempts To Ratify the Equal Rights Amendment by Blog Post
Biden announced today that the Equal Rights Amendment is the "law of the land," but the Justice Department and the national archivist disagree.

Outgoing President Joe Biden announced today that he believes the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) met ratification requirements and is now the official 28th amendment to the Constitution—a statement that has no legal force since the amendment remains unpublished.
"I agree with the [American Bar Association] and with leading legal constitutional scholars that the Equal Rights Amendment has become part of our Constitution," Biden said in a statement released by the White House. "It is long past time to recognize the will of the American people. 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."
Biden's comments are not an executive order requiring the national archivist to publish the amendment, but rather a statement of belief that contradicts the current legal opinion of the Justice Department and the archivist. The president has no constitutional role in the amendment process.
"Absent action by the Archivist that withstands the scrutiny of the courts, Joe Biden's advisory opinion that he thinks the Equal Rights Amendment ratified is empty, vain, given to the winds," says Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute's Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies.
Congress passed the ERA, which bans discrimination on the basis of sex, and sent it to the states for ratification in 1972, along with a 10-year deadline. But when that 1982 deadline passed, the ERA was three states short of the required 38, and several other states had attempted to rescind their ratification votes.
Nevertheless, the ERA reemerged during the first Trump administration, and three more states voted to ratify it, with Virginia becoming the 38th state to do so in 2020. Democrats, led by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.), have been pressuring Biden to recognize the ERA, arguing that the deadline imposed by Congress was unconstitutional.
The national archivist, Colleen Shogan, rejected that position in December and issued a statement saying she would not certify the ERA. Shogan cited court rulings and Justice Department opinions. In 2020 and again in 2022, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel "concluded that Congress had constitutional authority to impose that deadline and that, because 38 states had not ratified the proposed amendment before that deadline's expiration, the ERA is not a part of the United States Constitution and the Archivist of the United States may not certify it as such."
There is a legitimate argument that deadlines for ratification are inconsistent with Article V of the Constitution, but wishcasting the ERA into the Constitution is bad constitutional process and will further muddy the legal waters. The fact that Biden only announced he believes the ERA is the "law of the land" five years after it allegedly became so—and in the final days of his term—but declined to ever do anything to enforce or publish it, says everything about the seriousness of his position and the seriousness of his presidency.
Congress and the judiciary have the clear power to resolve the status of the ERA, and that is where it will be appropriately decided, not in blog posts from a historically unpopular president.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
OT: Major CNN Defamation case that very few are talking about... not looking good for CNN and their reptilian producers.
CNN was just found liable to the tune of $5 million, and they haven't considered punitive damages yet.
https://nypost.com/2025/01/17/media/cnn-must-pay-5m-for-defaming-navy-veteran-during-bidens-afghanistan-fiasco/
"The six-person jury said CNN had to pay damages totaling $5 million. There will be a second phase of the trial to determine any punitive damages. The verdict followed a two-week trial in Panama City, Fla., state court.
A CNN representative said the network would not comment until the jury decided punitive damages."
Considering the content of all the CNN internal emails they found during discovery, I'm guessing punitive damages are pretty likely. And likely to not be small.
Yeah, it seemed like there was clear malice based on the emails bouncing back and forth between producers. Those people at CNN are fucking insane.
Couldn't happen to a more trustworthy set of journalists. I'm expecting a huge punativr award. CNN was crying poverty to the jury.
I’m surprised Drunky isn’t here to defend them.
What do you mean? He says he criticizes the left all the time.
But he’s never here!
and they haven't considered punitive damages yet.
I was not aware of that when I tallied up recent judgements. If they don't award another $75M, it is clear that politics determines the award.
Conservatives need to file these lawsuits in solid red jurisdictions.
YAWN... SockMAGAt trying to change the subject on cue.
He isn’t a sock, you senile old cunt. And MAGA is in charge as of next week. So. Seethe harder pinko.
He's half right, I am trying to change the subject because... I mean... BOOORING, amirite?
Joe recognizes the constitution. Ask sarc.
Joe doesn't recognize what year it is. I doubt he had any input on that press release, if he even knew about it.
Bide has historically been more interested in raping them, including his own preteen daughter, and one of his staffers.
Hey, Joe helped WRITE the Constitution, in the same room with TJ, Lincoln, and Moses.
I don't think I've ever seen a better example of "be careful what you wish for." If the ERA ever were ratified, the obvious first step is to announce that henceforth all women have to register for the draft. Of course then alimony and child support would be abolished, the Title IX tribunals would be abolished, women would be charged and punished for crimes the same as men, etc.
Yeah - I was thinking the same thing when this talk started a few years back.
It sounds nice on the surface - "hey, Equal Rights are great, right? How could you be against them?"
But it's hard to think of any legal rights that women, in fact, do not have. The ERA, however, would, at least in theory, make women's sports, women's restrooms, women's locker rooms, battered women's shelters, etc., illegal if they exclude men.
Is this really a victory for "women's rights?"
Is this really a victory for "women's rights?"
That depends on your definition of woman.
It sounds nice on the surface - "hey, Equal Rights are great, right? How could you be against them?"
This is the same throughout history back to the Code of Hammurabi. Feminism has to reinterpret history this way in order to maintain the grift.
Not to say that there aren't or weren't parts of the world where women are legitimately oppressed but that if you can't keep up MUH PAYTREEARKY narrative by acknowledging that whole societies liberated and ennobled women by virtue of sex and enslaved and ennobled men through to-the-death combat. Lots and lots and lots of men through lots and lots and lots of to-the-death combat.
Except that progressives have pretty much outed themselves, admitting that they despise equal rights, and that they want special rights for select groups (and removal of rights from groups they hate).
child support would be abolished
Child support should be abolished if the children were born out of wedlock. If a woman makes a baby with a man she is not married to, and who has not otherwise contracted to be responsible for supporting the children, then he should not have to pay support nor have any parental rights. That is the position consistent with equality, since the woman has the sole right to decide whether to bear the child or to keep it after it's born. If a woman cannot be forced to be a parent, then neither should a man ever be.
Of note: sole right to decide isn't the only right/privilege baked into "My body, my choice."
Apropos of The Code of Hammurabi above: all the standard 'woman takes half' and alimony policies we have today remain in effect (ignoring the features whereby a male slave cannot be emancipated but a female slave can effectively self-emancipate). The only caveat is, if a woman is found to have cheated (i.e. had kids with another man and is trying to divorce you and take half), you can drown her.
To bad that isn't the law. My ex sister in law cheated on my brother multiple times, he tried to make it work for their kids. Eventually he left her ass. Had joint custody, she took him to court because he fell behind in child support after being diagnosed with terminal cancer. She won. And when he did finally pass, she got custody of the kids, because that's the law in Idaho, tried to force the kids to give up his last name and call her new husband Dad, and abused the kids, cut off all ties with my family for years and tried to convince the boys we didn't want them. Kicked out one of my nephews when he was 16, my parents adopted him, then she threw a fit because they got his Social Security survivor benefits.
If true, you have to be possessed by something ugly to be able to do all that.
Unfortunately, it's all true. The oldest is fucked up, can't keep a job, multiple run in with the law, high school drop out. The other two have done okay, both went in the service, the middle one, the one my parents adopted would likely have gone down the same road as his older brother but my parents straightened him out. Now he's married, working in law enforcement. He does have a TBI from his last deployment but that's a separate issue.
Too bad for the kids, but I hope they take revenge, and make her golden years a prolonged nightmare.
If I recall correctly, those were some of the arguments against the ERA, even from women, at the time in the 70s up until it expired in 1982.
Oh. Fun fact. Libertarian super president Jimmy Carter had the one who signed the amendments extension violating the constitutional rules on how amendments are passed. This "signed law" didn't even pass with the required two third majority, just a simple majority. All praise Jimmy.
Men are being screwed - ERA Now!
The men who are claiming anyone can be a woman are the ones that want this. They are absolute raging misogynists.
That's not how it works.
Man, more NORMS being protected. Thank God Biden won in 2020. If Trump had won, he might have ignored SCOTUS, unilaterally declared Constitutional Amendments passed, etc.
Horror!
Three more days to be rid of this embarrassing shell of a man.
And his Marxist handlers.
Biden's comments are not an executive order requiring the national archivist to publish the amendment, but rather a statement of belief that contradicts the current legal opinion of the Justice Department and the archivist. The president has no constitutional role in the amendment process.
A clear attempt to usurp a Constitutional power prohibited to the Executive. A violation that bold is deserving of impeachment, right? Right?
Well said ...
Congress already did, per your own article:
So did the judiciary, per your own article:
Most recently, see U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, case of llinois v. Ferriero, argued September 28, 2022, decided unanimously by the three-judge panel on February 28, 2023.
(Opinion was written by an Obama-appointed judge, other members of the panel were one appointed by Trump and one appointed by Biden.)
6 states have revoked or rescinded their ratification of the ERA. The Constitution doesn't say anything about rescinding approval of amendments, but it would be utter nonsense to say that saying "yes" one time, and then "no" at various other times counts as ratification.
The ERA was ratified by the required number of states. Thus it is quite reasonable to recognize it as part of the Constitution. The fact that Congress put a "must be ratified by" date on it, and that some states revoked the ratification are legitimate issues that need to be addressed.
You are just as cognitively deficient as Drooler Joe.
Did I say anything untrue?
Yes. It has been addressed. You're just a moron.
The date was part of getting the votes dumdum. It wouldn't have passed without the date.
Yes. See my comment.
https://reason.com/2025/01/17/biden-attempts-to-ratify-the-equal-rights-amendment-by-blog-post/?comments=true#comment-10873474
Yes, and by omission as well.
Several other states had rescinded their ratification votes before those that ratified it last, so it still fails to meet required number of states.
Constitution had no mechanism to revoke ratification.
It has no mechanism describing Congressional committees either, or specifying what an inauguration looks like.
And why the past tense? "Constitution had no ..."
Senators and Representatives change their votes while others are voting; are you saying those are unconstitutional too?
Sorry Molly, no ERA for you, now quit your bitchin’ and get back to the kitchen.
Those sandwiches don’t make themselves.
Yes. However my point is that is not unreasonable to take the position that the ERA had been ratified.
Yes, it is completely unreasonable. Seriously, are you a Pedo Jeffy sock? Because that is the same sophist idiocy thst he pukes out here.
Pedo Jeffy, or not, it doesn’t matter. It was never ratified.
Case closed.
- The due date for ratification expired with the amount short of the required 38 states
- Several states rescinded their ratification, most prior to the due date
- The three states that ratified after the due date had their lawsuit against the archivist shot down in court
- The president has no say in the ratification of an Amendment; the National Archives reiterated this and made Biden's declaration null
Nothing suggests that ERA has been made official. Nor does it need to be, as Ruth Bader Ginsburg admits.
It is utterly unreasonable.
You keep repeating stupid assertions with no basis in law or reality.
Likewise a ratified amendment has actually been revoked in the past lol.
The ERA was never ratified dumdum.
Is Molly really Pedo Jeffy?
They've been addressed dumdum.
You don't get to just modify the language passed by two thirds of Congress on a whim.
Why is your side of the aisle so fucking retarded?
The Constitution has a ratification process. That process does not have any provisions for Congress to impose time limits on amendments.
Are you seriously this dumb? They can pass an amendment proposal with any language they want. There is no limiting factor on their words in the process.
You're honestly a fucking idiot.
He’s in competition with sarc and Charliehall.
Leftists play this semantical game that has no basis in reality. Just like Pedo Jeffy does playing word games with ‘naturalization’ and ‘immigration’. It’s just retard level sophism.
The Libertarian party entered the affray at the same time. Google news archives online let any and all verify that the thing--like women's voting per the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments--was sidetracked and railroaded. Far safer for Comstock National Socialists to allow the Libertarians to claim temporary victory for women's individual rights, then hire a Hitler to pack the Court and strike that down while infiltrating and debasing the LP. Reagan, Ford, Murry Rottbutt, Bush² failed and crashed the economy, but Drumpf and the Jesus Caucus delivered.
‘Drumpf’ is now your now overlord. So bow down bitch.
This is a false statement.
Congress passed the ERA, which bans discrimination on the basis of sex, and sent it to the states for ratification in 1972, along with a 10-year deadline
No, they gave it a seven-year deadline.
Then Congress claimed to have extended the deadline by three years by simple majority vote; the court that heard it disagreed they could do that, but the extended deadline expired while on appeal to the Supreme Court, so the case was ultimately dismissed as moot.
Who has more authority? The Supreme court or Joe's blog writers?
You've never heard of Blogpost Precedent?
Sleepy Joe Counters KJB On Way Out, Claims Is Biologist
I hate when my dyslexia wrecks a joke lol
!aH
LOL
Oh, that one doesn’t work.
I thought Biden might have cornered her and tried to play amateur gynecologist. Like he did with Tara Reade.
George Washington "The Father of his Country"
Andrew Jackson "Old Hickory"
Abraham Lincoln "Honest Abe"
Teddy Roosevelt "Rough and Ready"
Harry Truman "Give 'em Hell Harry"
Ronald Reagan "The Great Communicator"
and...
and... it's unanimous.
Joe Biden "Historically Unpopular President"
Joe Biden "Brain Damaged"
Joe Biden 81 million “votes”.
“Old scratch and sniff”.
Herbert Hoover, the Father of Christian National Socialist Prohibitionism and the War on Happiness! Hoover got Adolf Hitler elevated to Chancellor of Germany... there's Republican success. https://libertrans.blogspot.com/2023/07/herbert-hoover-and-adolf-hitler.html
Nobody gives a fuck about the Ravi gs in your blog, Hank.
"Fuck" Joe Biden
Another sign of Biden's senility -- the ERA was ratified years ago, and he just now noticed.
Teleprompter slipped a cog.
A lie, thanks to the deadline time bomb and subsequent Kleptocracy machinations. But no matter. Resetting to the original 1972 LP platform and restarting the process in light of Christian National Socialist Comstock strategies--now a matter of record--ought to succeed in light of facts. After all, 19A finally overcame the Cruickshank Suprema Corte throwaway that nullified 13A+14A+15A. Persistence pays.
>Biden announced today that the Equal Rights Amendment is the "law of the land," but the Justice Department and the national archivist disagree.
Its hilarious that Reason thought this guy was a better choice than Trump because Trump would 'act like a dictator on day one'. Instead, 'the adults in the room' are doing all the bullshit you were scared Trump would do.
Fascism keeps descending on Trump but landing on Biden.
Fuck Biden. Any and all of them.
This hasn't been a serious administration. If the ERA was that important, he should have been pushing it years ago.
The states had 10 years to ratify, and they didn't. Biden suddenly deciding that the amendment is law, a week before departure, is like your little brother trying to write a paper assigned on Friday at breakfast on Monday.
Biden also quoted as saying "I built the most competent Foreign Policy team in US history." After the Arabs said the Israeli/Palestinian cease fire talks progressed further in one meeting with Trump than it did in the last, what? 468 days?
BTW, Biden has until Monday to cure cancer. From 6/14/19: "I promise you if I'm elected president, you're going to see the single most important thing that changes America," Biden announced. "We're gonna cure cancer."
Not serious at all. And that explains everything.
That was batshit crazy. The guy is unhinged. Talk about an oligarchy! He's adding shit to the Constitution!
Then call a fool a FOOL, bottom 10 of his law class, and a legendarily lazy man. A couple days to go and you finally get a smidgeon. of backbone.
You have to be a fool to say lthe things he says.
He's been a low-effort, low-IQ moron for the entirety of his political career. Remember the Clarence Thomas approval hearings in the Senate?
But he still - I don't think - didn't have anything to do with writing this memo. Like much of his presidency. This was written by behind-the-scene staffers and handlers who took a few too many Marxist Studies courses in college, and believe the left-wing bullshit spin they were taught.
It's only fair that all pregnant wife's and mothers get drafted.... /s
Ironically. I think the ones who pushed this amendment will be the last ones to obey it. Sure it'll come in handy for self-entitlements but will be entirely forgotten on the responsibilities side.
Thankfully, two days from now President Joe Magoo will be gone. I just hope he will just go quietly and not inflict anymore damage upon the country.
There is no chance of that. The lawfare, leftist violence, and Deep State obstruction against Trump will continue. The Biden cabal will continue to participate.
After the Nov 2023 election proved one thing -- the nation hates woke DEI -- Biden tries to make the insane Equal Rights Amendment into law!
You realize Biden's not behind the wheel, right?
Biden's has just hours to fast forward the ratification of the Titles of Nobility Amendment of 1810, which has remained 2 states short of ratification since 1816. As it would nullify the citizenship of anyone on the take from a foreign prince or potentate, it would be a bipartisan loose cannon.
Watched Trump last night and felt vindicated in thinking Margaret Atwood a fool
“We still think of a powerful man as a born leader and a powerful woman as an anomaly.”
― Margaret Atwood
Trump draws powerful women like a mega-magnet drawn through a hill of filings. Georgio Meloni (Italy) Rita Panahi (Australia) and countless from America. Could Kamala Harris last 5 minutes wit Megyn Kelly. Is Dr Jill even in the same race as J D Vance's wife.
Nothing says "defending the constitution" like just announcing that an amendment that didn't get ratified 50 years ago magically is in force now.
So this means we can't treat "women owned businesses" differently, right? No preference in government contracts?