Law Commons^™

Possible Avenues For Action Related To The Equal Rights Amendment, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

Resolutions have been introduced into both the House and the Senate declaring the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to be fully ratified as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There are other legislative steps that—while short of declaring the ERA fully ratified — could be taken to advance the measure toward final ratification, and to create political facts that would reinforce the position that the ERA is already the 28th Amendment.

Testimony To The Senate Judiciary Committee By The Era Project At Columbia Law School And Constitutional Law Scholars On Joint Resolution S.J.Res. 4: Removing The Deadline For The Ratification Of The Equal Rights Amendment, Katherine M. Franke, Laurence H. Tribe, Geoffrey R. Stone, Melissa Murray, Michael C. Dorf

Faculty Scholarship

The Equal Rights Amendment Project at Columbia Law School (ERA Project) and the undersigned constitutional law scholars provide the following analysis of S.J.Res. 4, resolving to remove the time limit for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and declaring the ERA fully ratified.

Faq On The U.S. Archivist And The Future Of The Equal Rights Amendment, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

On Wednesday, September 21, 2022, the Senate will hold hearings on the nomination of Colleen Shogan as the new Archivist of the United States. This FAQ offers a short primer on what the Archivist does, her official role in the finalization of proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution, including the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), and the impact of Archivist action on the validity of the ERA.

Era Project Olc Letter, Katherine M. Franke, David E. Pozen, Erwin Chemerinsky, Melissa Murray, Laurence H. Tribe, Martha Minow, Geoffrey C. Stone, Cary Franklin, Michael C. Dorf, Victoria Nourse

Faculty Scholarship

The Equal Rights Amendment Project at Columbia Law School (“ERA Project”) and the undersigned scholars submit this letter at the request of your office to provide legal analysis of the January 6, 2020 Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel Memorandum to the National Archives and Records Administration on the Equal Rights Amendment (“2020 OLC Memo”).

Adventures In The Article V Wonderland: Justiciability And Legal Sufficiency Of The Era Ratifications, Danaya C. Wright

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article examines the paradoxical world of Article V—the amending power of the Constitution—in light of the recent ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). It explores the question of whether Article V issues are justiciable, what role the federal and state courts play in determining Article V procedures, and who has the jurisdiction to evaluate the legal sufficiency of state ratifications. This is a confounding area of law, and with a few judicial precedents, some textualism and originalism arguments, and recourse to logic and scholarship, I conclude that the ERA is validly the Twenty-Eighth Amendment. I provide a detailed …

May 2021 Era Update, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

The campaign to finalize the Equal Rights Amendment is being waged on several fronts. One in the courts, one in Congress. Last week, there were developments in two important lawsuits seeking to have the Equal Rights Amendment declared finalized and a valid part of the U.S. Constitution, thus securing explicit sex equality protections in the Constitution.

Era Project Faq On The District Court's Decision In Virginia V. Ferriero, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

The states that brought the lawsuit do not have standing. This means that the states that brought the lawsuit were not injured by the fact that the Archivist refused to publish the amendment. Their argument is that the Archivist’s refusal to publish the Amendment undermined their sovereign power to ratify a change to the Constitution.

Faq On The Current Status Of The Equal Rights Amendment To The U.S. Constitution, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

Several measures have been introduced into the U.S. Congress this session that relate to the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). One is a resolution that would lift the deadline for ratification of the ERA that was passed by Congress in 1972, and the other is a new ERA that would begin a new process of amending the Constitution to add explicit protections for sex equality. This FAQ is designed to explain what each of these measures would do and the legal complexities that surround them.

The Puzzles And Possibilities Of Article V, David E. Pozen, Thomas P. Schmidt

Faculty Scholarship

Legal scholars describe Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which sets forth rules for amending the document, as an uncommonly stringent and specific constitutional provision. A unanimous Supreme Court has said that a “mere reading demonstrates” that “Article V is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity, and calls for no resort to rules of construction.” Although it is familiar that a small set of amendments, most notably the Reconstruction Amendments, elicited credible challenges to their validity, these episodes are seen as anomalous and unrepresentative. Americans are accustomed to disagreeing over the meaning of the constitutional text, but …

Why Write? The Desuetude Of Article V And The Democratic Costs Of Informal Constitutional Amendment, Andrea Scoseria Katz

Scholarship@WashULaw

In his classic Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, the great British constitutional scholar, Albert Venn Dicey likened the constitutional amendment power of the United States to a “a monarch who slumbers and sleeps.”1 It was during periods of constitutional amendment, Dicey explained, writing in 1897, that the full sovereign power of the nation came together out of the disparate fifty states, but these moments were few and far between.

The Special Norms Thesis: Why Congress's Constitutional Decision-Making Should Be Disciplined By More Than The Usual Norms Of Politics, Mark Rosen

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Countersupermajoritarianism, Frederic Bloom, Nelson Tebbe

Publications

How should the Constitution change? In Originalism and the Good Constitution, John McGinnis and Michael Rappaport argue that it ought to change in only one way: through the formal mechanisms set out in the Constitution’s own Article V. This is so, they claim, because provisions adopted by supermajority vote are more likely to be substantively good. The original Constitution was ratified in just that way, they say, and subsequent changes should be implemented similarly. McGinnis and Rappaport also contend that this substantive goodness is preserved best by a mode of originalist interpretation. In this Review, we press two main arguments. …

The Future Resists Control, Richard A. Primus

Reviews

Bruce Ackerman long ago persuaded me that Article V has not been the only route—or even the normal route—to legitimate constitutional change. Volume 3 admirably adds nuance to Ackerman’s account of what happens instead. But nuance can be a vice of a theory as well as a virtue, depending on whether the goal is to understand a phenomenon in its complexity or to provide an actionable program for the future. We The People aims to do both: it is, after all, a grand project, probably the most important in constitutional thought in the last thirty years. But in spite of …

Unbundling Constitutionality, Richard A. Primus

Articles

Constitutional theory features a persistent controversy over the source or sources of constitutional status, that is, over the criteria that qualify some rules as constitutional rules. This Article contends that no single criterion characterizes all of the rules that American law treats as constitutional, such that it is a mistake to think of constitutionality as a status with necessary conditions. It is better to think of constitutionality on a bundle-of-sticks model: different attributes associated with constitutionality might or might not be present in any constitutional rule. Analysts should often direct their attention more to the separate substantive properties that are …

Stopping Time: The Pro-Slavery And 'Irrevocable' Thirteenth Amendment, A. Christopher Bryant

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

In the post-secession winter of 1861, both Houses of Congress approved a proposed thirteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Three northern States even ratified the proposal before the Civil War intervened. That version of the thirteenth amendment, introduced in the House by Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio, purported to prohibit any future amendment granting Congress power to interfere with slavery in the States. The Congressional Globe volumes for the winter 1861 legislative session include rich debates about whether the amending power could be used to limit future exercise of that same authority. Those forgotten debates offer significant insights for modern …

Towards A More Perfect Union: Some Thoughts On Amending The Constitution, Thomas E. Baker

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

We The Unconventional American People, James E. Fleming

Faculty Scholarship

In his 1991 volume, We the People: Foundations, Bruce Ackerman urged us as Americans to declare our independence from European models of government and to “look inward” to rediscover our distinctive constitutional scheme--dualist democracy.1 In his new volume, We the People: Transformations, he exhorts us as dualist democrats to break up the monopoly that Article V of the Constitution has held on our vision of constitutional amendment. He urges us to move “beyond Article V” and to embrace a pluralist understanding of the sources of higher lawmaking (pp 15-17). Only by doing so, he argues, will we be able …

Constitutional Fidelity And The Commerce Clause: A Reply To Professor Ackerman, Elizabeth Price Foley, Elizabeth C. Price

Faculty Publications

Can the Constitution be legitimately, albeit implicitly, amended by the Supreme Court? The possibility of implicit constitutional amendment - most forcefully advocated by Professor Bruce Ackerman as "transformative" Supreme Court decisions - has been articulated to justify, legitimate, and entrench various radical reinterpretations of the Constitution, most notably the New Deal Court's vast expansion of the power to regulate commerce. The article concludes that such implicit constitutional amendments are theoretically illegitimate and provide strong disincentives for "We the People" to become politically active in order to "correct" flaws in the original Constitution or interpretations thereof that are deemed no longer …

We The People[S], Original Understanding, And Constitutional Amendment, Henry Paul Monaghan

Faculty Scholarship

Recent legal and political activity and renewed academic discussion have focused considerable attention on the nature of the federal system that the founders created some two hundred years ago. In two important decisions in the 1994 Term, the Supreme Court addressed this issue. No fewer than fifteen states have recently passed resolutions reasserting the importance of the Tenth Amendment – the constitutional affirmation of the limits on national authority. Additionally, legal academics have advanced arguments intended to alter settled understandings about the constitutional framework established in 1789. This widespread reexamination of the nature and limitations of our federal system has …

Parlor Game, Philip Chase Bobbitt

Faculty Scholarship

The Constitution is not perfect. Indeed I don't know what 'perfection' is in a constitution, since it is an instrument for human hands and thus must bear within its possibilities all the potential for misuse that comes with the user. What I am sure of is that 'perfection' does not mean 'never needs to be amended,' since one important part of the Constitution is its provision for amendment (although I am inclined to believe that few of the amendments to the U.S. constitution were actually necessary.)

That said, a competition to find the "stupidest provision of the Constitution" is, to …

Rejecting Conventional Wisdom: Federalist Ambivalence In The Framing And Implementation Of Article V, Kurt T. Lash

Law Faculty Publications

In 1787, the idea of placing an amending provision in a constitution was uncontroversial. Popular sovereignty was an assumed doctrine in the colonies; the people retained the unalienable right "to alter or abolish" their system of government whenever they so pleased. How this unquestionable right was to be incorporated into the new federal Constitution, however, was another matter. The delegates who faced each other at Philadelphia had very different views about which body should be entrusted with the power to propose amendments, when that power should be used, and how that power should be defined.

Article V, like the rest …

Ackerman's Proposal For Popular Constitutional Lawmaking: Can It Realize His Aspirations For Dualist Democracy?, Philip J. Weiser

Publications

No abstract provided.

Article V And The Proposed Federal Constitutional Convention Procedures Bills, Kenneth F. Ripple

Journal Articles

Article V of the United States Constitution sets forth the respective powers of the states and Congress in the amendment process. At first blush, the amendment process outlined in article V appears uncomplicated and straightforward. Congress can propose amendments and determine whether ratification will be accomplished by state legislatures or state conventions. Three-fourths of the state legislatures or state conventions must ratify a proposed amendment before it becomes part of the Constitution. The history of the amendment process confirms the apparent simplicity of that provision of article V which empowers Congress to propose amendments. To date, all twenty-six amendments have …