H.J.Res.80 - Establishing the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. (119th Congress)
Summary
H.J. Res. 80 aims to establish the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) by declaring that the amendment has been validly ratified, notwithstanding any previous time limits. The resolution seeks to recognize that the ERA has met the constitutional requirement of ratification by three-fourths of the states. It references House Joint Resolution 208 from the 92nd Congress, which initially proposed the ERA but included a time limit for ratification.
The resolution is sponsored by Ms. Pressley and numerous other representatives. It was introduced in the House of Representatives and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The core purpose is to remove any doubt or legal obstacles preventing the ERA from becoming part of the United States Constitution.
Expected Effects
If passed, H.J. Res. 80 would likely lead to the formal inclusion of the Equal Rights Amendment in the Constitution. This would constitutionally guarantee equal rights regardless of sex.
This could trigger legal challenges regarding the validity of the ratification process, given the expired time limit and rescissions by some states. The practical effects would depend on how courts interpret the resolution and the ERA's impact on existing laws and policies.
Potential Benefits
- Constitutional Equality: Guarantees explicit constitutional protection against sex-based discrimination.
- Legal Clarity: Provides a clearer legal standard for addressing sex discrimination in various areas, such as employment, education, and healthcare.
- Empowerment of Women: Reinforces the principle of gender equality, potentially leading to greater opportunities and representation for women.
- International Alignment: Brings the U.S. in line with international norms and standards on gender equality.
- Symbolic Significance: Represents a significant step towards achieving full equality for all Americans.
Potential Disadvantages
- Legal Uncertainty: Could lead to protracted legal battles over the validity of the ratification process and the ERA's interpretation.
- Potential for Unintended Consequences: May create unforeseen legal challenges or conflicts with existing laws and regulations.
- Increased Litigation: Could result in a surge of lawsuits seeking to apply the ERA to various aspects of life, potentially burdening the legal system.
- Political Polarization: May further exacerbate political divisions and tensions surrounding gender equality issues.
- Impact on Existing Laws: The ERA's broad language could lead to re-evaluation and potential invalidation of laws that differentiate based on sex.
Constitutional Alignment
The resolution's constitutional alignment is complex. Article V of the Constitution outlines the amendment process, requiring ratification by three-fourths of the states. The central issue is whether Congress can retroactively validate a previously failed amendment due to an expired time limit.
Arguments against alignment cite the original time limit set by Congress, suggesting that the ERA did not meet the requirements within the specified timeframe. Proponents argue that once three-fourths of the states have ratified, the amendment should be considered valid, regardless of any time constraints.
The Supreme Court would likely need to resolve this constitutional question, considering both the text of Article V and historical practices related to constitutional amendments.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).