The 28th Amendment?

[Bob78164]

Yesterday, Virginia ratified the ERA, becoming the 38th state to do so. The legal fireworks surrounding the deadline stated in the amendment and the five states that have rescinded their ratifications can now begin. --Bob

[bazodee]

Deadline was unambiguous. The Archivist of the United States will determine that this is not a valid amendment. The deadline issue will get resolved in court quickly rendering the rescinding issue moot.

[Bob78164]

Deadline was unambiguous. The Archivist of the United States will determine that this is not a valid amendment. The deadline issue will get resolved in court quickly rendering the rescinding issue moot.

The deadline issue isn't as clear-cut as you might think, and I'm not at all sure how the courts will resolve it. No question that the deadline was unambiguous. What is in question, though, is whether Congress has the power to condition approval of a constitutional amendment on meeting a deadline.

As for the rescission issue, my understanding is that some states attempted, unsuccessfully, to rescind their ratification of the 14th and 15th Amendments before they achieved the necessary 3/4 majority, so there is historical precedent that a state's ratification is irrevocable. --Bob

[jarnon]

Deadline was unambiguous. The Archivist of the United States will determine that this is not a valid amendment. The deadline issue will get resolved in court quickly rendering the rescinding issue moot.

The deadline issue isn't as clear-cut as you might think, and I'm not at all sure how the courts will resolve it. No question that the deadline was unambiguous. What is in question, though, is whether Congress has the power to condition approval of a constitutional amendment on meeting a deadline.

The 18th, 20th, 21st and 22nd Amendments all had 7-year deadlines written into the text of the amendments. That's hard to argue with. This amendment's deadline isn't part of its text, so there's no clear precedent.

[Bob78164]

Deadline was unambiguous. The Archivist of the United States will determine that this is not a valid amendment. The deadline issue will get resolved in court quickly rendering the rescinding issue moot.

The deadline issue isn't as clear-cut as you might think, and I'm not at all sure how the courts will resolve it. No question that the deadline was unambiguous. What is in question, though, is whether Congress has the power to condition approval of a constitutional amendment on meeting a deadline.

The 18th, 20th, 21st and 22nd Amendments all had 7-year deadlines written into the text of the amendments. That's hard to argue with. This amendment's deadline isn't part of its text, so there's no clear precedent.

It's not hard to argue with because it never became an issue since those Amendments were in fact all approved within seven years. Now that it has become an issue, we simply don't know what will happen. I don't even think I know what should happen. --Bob

[jarnon]

The deadline issue isn't as clear-cut as you might think, and I'm not at all sure how the courts will resolve it. No question that the deadline was unambiguous. What is in question, though, is whether Congress has the power to condition approval of a constitutional amendment on meeting a deadline.

The 18th, 20th, 21st and 22nd Amendments all had 7-year deadlines written into the text of the amendments. That's hard to argue with. This amendment's deadline isn't part of its text, so there's no clear precedent.

It's not hard to argue with because it never became an issue since those Amendments were in fact all approved within seven years. Now that it has become an issue, we simply don't know what will happen. I don't even think I know what should happen. --Bob

House Joint Resolution 554 (August 28, 1978)

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

“Article

“Section 1. For purposes of representation in the Congress, election of the President and Vice President, and article V of this Constitution, the District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall be treated as though it were a State.

“Sec. 2. The exercise of the rights and powers conferred under this article shall be by the people of the District constituting the seat of government, and as shall be provided by the Congress.

“Sec. 3. The twenty-third article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

"Sec. 4. This article shall be inoperative, unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission."

[triviawayne]

I would think we have had precedent, so what is the difference in how long the ERA took to ratify from this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-se ... nstitution

[jarnon]

I would think we have had precedent, so what is the difference in how long the ERA took to ratify from this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-se ... nstitution

That amendment had no defined ratification limit. The examples I found had a 7-year limit written into the amendment. The ERA has a limit in the Congressional resolution only, so it’s different.

[bazodee]

The 27th amendment, when proposed as part of the Bill of Rights, had no deadline attached to it. There were originally twelve proposed amendments included in the Bill of Rights but only ten passed in the 1790s. Deadlines weren't attached until early in the 20th century. So there are a few potential amendments still floating around out there that could be ratified.