Statement from President Joe Biden on the Equal Rights Amendment

[TheProle]

I have supported the Equal Rights Amendment for more than 50 years, and I have long been clear that no one should be discriminated against based on their sex. We, as a nation, must affirm and protect women’s full equality once and for all.

On January 27, 2020, the Commonwealth of Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. The American Bar Association (ABA) has recognized that the Equal Rights Amendment has cleared all necessary hurdles to be formally added to the Constitution as the 28th Amendment. I agree with the ABA and with leading legal constitutional scholars that the Equal Rights Amendment has become part of our Constitution.

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.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2025/01/17/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-the-equal-rights-amendment/

[MichMan]

1. So it is now effective immediately?

The Archivists are overruled?

If this was all that was needed, why wasn't this statement made 4 years ago when he took office?

[FBaggins]

7. No

It has no effect at all

But it’s at least useful in drawing attention

[TheRickles]

8. So what is the specific barrier to implementation?

How could the Archivist outweigh the President and the states? Seems strange....

[FBaggins]

10. There isn't anything to "outweigh"

The president doesn’t really play a role in the amendment process - so his opinion doesn’t do anything.

Even the archivist is really just a procedural step (much like Trump’s belief that the VP actually had some power in certifying the electoral votes).

Neither one has the power to undue a deadline that has passed

[TheRickles]

12. Ah, so it's the passed deadline that's the obstacle. Out of curiosity, when was that?

[FBaggins]

17. 1982

That date, however, was itself an extension.

There have been proposed extensions in Congress since then - and some debate on whether that was possible

[tritsofme]

18. It's not even clear that extension was valid.

Can a simple majority change the terms of a proposed amendment passed in Congress by a supermajority? It’s not clear.

[FBaggins]

23. True enough

Either way it will be fodder for political debate likely for additional decades.

[kiri]

24. no effect at all

"It has no effect at all But it’s at least useful in drawing attention."

A seminal analysis.
But it might be a lawyer full-employment forever program.

And it gives magas high blood pressure.

[MichMan]

26. Or gives a lot of people false hope.... n/t

[Ninga]

2. This!!! More!! Thank you Joe!!

[Dennis Donovan]

3. Yay!!!!!!!

[Clouds Passing]

4. As a woman I thank you Joe! Make it stick!

[Quiet Em]

6. I am so grateful to President Biden right now.

I had faith that he would set this in motion for us, and he did!

Now let's get it done. It's way overdue.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. This makes me smile

Link to tweet

[ihaveaquestion]

9. So what's the holdup?

I've read that he just has to direct the archivists (or whoever) to officially add it to the official amendment list. Was that wrong?

[TommyT139]

13. Per Wikipedia, she declined last month.

[quaint]

11. Wow, all this time I thought it had to be passed by the states by June 30, 1982.

So happy to be wrong!

[Bondor]

15. Alas...

You were not wrong. A quick google check says the ratification deadlines have passed. Additional action would be needed, not sure by whom. The SCOTUS is unfriendly, and it would be naive to expect positive action from congress. The ERA is sadly not yet the law of the land. Maybe if we recover democracy we can make it so.

[quaint]

16. Buzz kill.

[CaptainTruth]

14. Didn't the deadline pass, in 1982 I think? Can anyone explain?

[sab390]

19. There are many ways it could be done

There is a question as to whether a deadline is constitutional. Many of the amendments of the 1800's weren't ratified by some states until the 1970's. We could petition the Supreme Court to rule whether the deadline is constitutional. Fat chance with that. Or we could just see if we could get a lower court to accept it. We're not dead yet!

[Walleye]

22. Yep, Trump wouldn't care about no stinking deadline

If the situation was turned around

[FBaggins]

25. There is little doubt that deadlines are constitutional

Since they are in the constitution.

SCOTUS has previously ruled as such… though there is some debate over whether that was non-binding discussion

[kansasobama]

20. Constitution is obstacle to reforms

Our Constitution is way way rigid considering the lunacy of MAGA.

Anyway, I am not sure about this based on the following from CNN. Five states have rescinded their approval as of now.

Biden, a senior Biden administration official said, is not taking executive action, but is “stating an opinion that it is ratified.”

“He is using his power of the presidency to make it clear that he believes – and he agrees with leading constitutional scholars and the American Bar Association – not that it should be, but it is the 28th Amendment of the Constitution,” the official added.

But legal experts contend it isn’t that simple: Ratification deadlines lapsed and five states have rescinded their approval, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s law school, prompting questions about the president’s authority to ratify the amendment more than 50 years after it first passed."

[carpetbagger]

21. Great. But doesn't it delay what's actually needed?

It's not going to be recognized. A fresh ERA lacks 2/3 support currently, but let's put Republicans on the hotseat, and we'll get there sooner than by holding to this ratification theory.

Biden did the right thing, but we need to admit that it's less likely to work than starting fresh.

[TheProle]

27. I don't disagree

It brings it to front of mind, and is a great issue for us to sink our teeth into.

[MichMan]

28. Not sure why this statement was helpful.

Nothing has changed since 2020, so there are no recent events that caused the president to issue this a few days before he leaves office. It could have very well have been issued shortly after he took office, and wasn't.

Given that it holds no legal weight, as the president holds no role in the adoption of an amendment, all it appears to have done is provide false hope to a lot of people that it really has been ratified and is now in effect.