Biden's ERA Ratification Sparks Legal Battle Amidst Final Executive Actions Drive

In the waning days of his presidency, President Joe Biden has reignited the controversial debate over the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) with his executive actions aimed at securing its ratification.

The ERA's History and Significance

The ERA, proposed in 1923, is a constitutional amendment that would guarantee equal rights for all citizens regardless of sex. Despite passing both the House and Senate in 1972, it fell three states short of the 38 required ratifications needed for it to become law.

In 2020, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the ERA, leading activists and legal experts to argue that the amendment had met the necessary requirements for ratification.

Biden's Executive Actions

In his final days in office, Biden issued a memorandum directing the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to publish the ERA in the Federal Register as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution.

This action sparked legal challenges from conservative groups and some states, who argued that the deadline for ratification had passed in 1982 and that Biden's actions violated the Constitution's amendment process.

Legal Battle Ensues

The legal battle over the ERA's ratification has taken several turns. A federal judge in Florida initially blocked Biden's memorandum, but the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals later overturned that ruling.

The Supreme Court is now considering whether to hear an appeal of the Eleventh Circuit's decision. Legal experts say the Court's ruling could have major implications for future constitutional amendments.

Perspectives on the ERA

The ERA remains a deeply polarizing issue, with strong opinions on both sides.

Supporters' Arguments

Supporters of the ERA argue that it is necessary to ensure equal rights for women and that Virginia's ratification in 2020 fulfilled the requirements for adoption.

"The ERA is long overdue, and it's time for our Constitution to finally reflect the principle that all citizens are equal," said Gloria Steinem, a prominent feminist leader.

Opponents' Arguments

Opponents of the ERA contend that the amendment process was not followed properly and that the deadline for ratification has expired.

"Congress clearly set a deadline for the ERA's ratification, and that deadline has long passed," argued James Bopp, a conservative legal scholar.

Conclusion

The legal battle over the ERA is likely to continue for some time. The Supreme Court's decision could have significant consequences for the future of constitutional amendments and for women's rights in the United States.

Regardless of the outcome, the Biden administration's actions have thrust the ERA back into the national spotlight and reopened the debate over the meaning of equality and the ongoing need for constitutional change.

Reflection on Broader Implications

The legal battle over the ERA highlights the complexities of constitutional amendments and the challenges of ensuring equal rights in the face of changing societal norms and political realities.

The debate also raises questions about the role of the courts in interpreting the Constitution and the extent to which executive actions can shape the law. The Supreme Court's decision will not only affect the ERA but will also have implications for future efforts to amend the Constitution.

Read also: Hot Off The Press: Jaiswal's Outrageous DRS Blunder Sparks Umpire Confrontation At MCG