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”).

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 …

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 …