What does that mean? Did he do anything or is he just sharing his thoughts?
From the NYT: "Trump Transition Live Updates: Equal Rights Amendment Has Passed, Biden Says, but He Does Not Force Certification": "President Biden... said he would not press a legal fight by ordering the government to finalize the process by officially publishing it."
The conspicuous doing of nothing.
Posts
46 comments:
I thought democrats had moved on from "equality" long ago.
"Equity" is the new hotness.
didn't he just bitch and moan about mis- and disinformation? What a tool.
Equal rights: diversity of individuals, minority of one.
Civil unions for all consenting adults.
Equal responsibility, not shared/shifted responsibility.
Human rights, not reproductive rites. #HateLovesAbortion
It took the 27th Amendment 200 years to get into the Constitution. But it didn’t have the 7-year rule for states to ratify. Congress could pass it again with no time limit this time.
Biden's reputation for constitutional scholarship will throw great weight behind this legal theory.
Desperate for a legacy. Don't worry, Joe - you've already got one.
Joe Biden last week: disinformation is a threat to democracy
Joe Biden this week: The Equal Rights Amendment has passed.
So, they have 38 votes, but fewer than that within the 7 years. And of those, 4 rescinded before the deadline, and one after that. The only way to get to 38 is to only count approvals, without deducting rescissions, and ignoring both the statutory and Amendment text.
Good luck with that.
Magical thinking. They interns running his X account are hoping that they can just will it into being. I say; let 'em. Considering the male/female imbalance in higher education I wouldn't mind seeing such an amendment come back and bite certain people in the ass.
Ah yes, another insane proclamation from a cognitively challenged treasonous, child abusing turd creature. Also known as another day that ends in "y". Bugger off .
Aggie posts:
“Desperate for a legacy. Don't worry, Joe - you've already got one.”
Bozo the clown says, “Hey wait a minute - that was my legacy.”
the Archivist of the United States has repeatedly stated she will not pretend the ERA was ratified.
Meanwhile, Liz Cheney is chain smoking cigarettes and staring nervously at the clock and telephone.
At the same time, the passage in Article II saying the President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has ceased to be part of the Constitution.
"...the ABA and... leading legal Constitutional scholars..." apparently cannot read.
Does it say what a "woman" is? It might be a good idea to get that incorporated in the Constitution. So KBJ can stop lying awake nights, pondering on the question.
What an bankrupt thing to do. In a way I hope he doesn't know this happened, and that some loony staffer is responsible for this. It bears the marks of being designed to cause a constitutional crisis.
Last second virtue signalling.
Eat more Ibogaine nails it, with a close second for RNB.
"I believe the children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way."
-- Dead from a drowning overdose, Whitney Houston
Beliefs plus $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
So who wants to bet his staff shoves a piece of paper across his desk granting all illegal persons in the country amnesty and citizenship before Monday? It is just as unconstitutional as the ERA statement, but they do not care one whit.
Here is the enabling legislation (which clearly sets out the 7 year time limit) as well as the text of the Amendment. Since the 7 year limit is also statutory, that means that ignoring the statute would void the proposed amendment.
But what’s humorous to me is that a District Court just vacated defining Sex Discrimination to mean anything besides Male (XY) and Female (XX), under Title VI Civil Rights Act of 1964. And since the important time in determining interpretation is the time of enactment - and that means 50 years ago, when sex meant Male (XY) or Female (XX), and didn’t cover sexual orientation or preferences, pronouns, etc (at a minimum, see Bruen for interpreting the 2nd and 14th Amdts). The left very likely doesn’t want that definition at all, but greatly prefers the definition that includes sexual orientation and preferences, etc.
Had to repost this because the HTML didn’t work, because Blogger only looks for matching vertical quotes " and not the angled “and” quotes that IOS inserts. Long term problem that I have run into before. Usually I get around it by copy and pasting the HTML, then filling in the blanks. Forgot. This time, because I had already copied the URL.
No. It means Male (XY) or Female (XX). Nothing more. See below.
The ERA could only be of any possible value if there were some verifiable method by which we could differentiate between a man and a woman.
If this is such a great idea the democrats should pass it through congress, get the president to sign it, and then the states will all ratify it lickety-split.
Oh, wait...
On Monday, Trump could say he is going to govern as if the ERA is part of the constitution.
Then he can enforce cruel equality: no more AA, setasides, or any other special treatment for women at the federal level. And jump into state business with lawsuits. Either the courts stop the state programs, or they say the ERA isn’t part of the constitution.
Win-win.
JSM
Why didn't he do this on his first day as President? Why wait until the end?
I want to see that ABA opinion.
From Insty:
Charles Cooke tweets, “I’m trying to get inside the head of anyone—Biden included, if he’s aware of it—who thought that it would be a good idea for the president of the United States to tweet out that he was unilaterally declaring that the Constitution had been amended. It’s so deliciously humiliating,” adding, “And not just humiliating for Biden and his team. Humiliating for all those people who said Biden was a decent guy who respects the law and America’s institutions and were rewarded with the student-loan grab, eviction moratorium, pardon of Hunter, and now this. It’s hilarious.”
Serious legal question: if the ERA ever becomes part of the constitution, what level of scrutiny would be applied on its behalf?
No right is absolute, and sometimes multiple rights conflict with each other. I assume some differential treatment based on sex would still be allowed, just like some restrictions on speech, travel, privacy, etc, are allowed. But what would be the test? Strict scrutiny? Intermediate? Rational basis?
The ERA was written when all these different levels of scrutiny were fully developed. Congress could have written the test into the amendment. But they pussied out. Pun intended.
JSM
I skimmed the liberal ABA opinion. The ABA's House of Delegates had a vote and they approved the so-called legal opinion by the ABA's Commission on Women that Congress had no authority to limit ratification to 7 years. And Article V doesn't put in any time limits on amendments.
Total lawyer BS reasoning.
Nicely done.
What you are seeing with this push is the future, ladies and gentlemen- a future where the President can amend the Constitution by fiat. Eventually, inside of 25 years I am predicting, the Supreme Court will validate this view of whether or not the ERA is an actual amendment. Right now, if you had to take a case to SCOTUS, this view that the ERA has passed would get 3 justices agreeing.
The ABA has become a dead husk inhabited by the left and their "go-along to get-along" enablers. Its pronouncements are perennial confirmations of its ideological capture. If only I could describe it as irrelevant. Sadly, this husk is still a force in American society and government. That is why the Federalist Society is so important.
The Archivist would validate this view instantly if the Democrats had a majority on SCOTUS- it is only the certainty that the rule would be overturned inside of a week that prevented her from doing so.
Equal rights were the foundation of The Constitution. Followed by a progressive purge with the introduction of Diversity (i.e. class-disordered ideologies) and institutional, systemic Diversity under DEI.
I remember that one of the arguments against the passage of the ERA was that it would allow biological males to use women's restrooms and locker rooms.
Kinda tough for Biden to pardon her for her crimes, when he just gave her the Presidential Citizen's Medal
Bruce: One can turn off “Smart Punctuation” (so-called) under iOS in Settings/General/Keyboard. Then only "straight quotes" ('single' and "double") will be produced by typing the quote keys—if you want something different from these, type the Option-[ or -{ or -] or -} to directly get “smart” ‘quotes’.
While in the car a couple hours ago, I heard my local NPR station report on this. Even for them, I swear I could hear their eyes roll when they sad it.
Joe Biden will be remembered as the darkest figure to have ever darkened the Oval Office.
Could the President order the head of the national archives to record the approval?
Post a Comment