President Joe Biden recently announced that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has been ratified by the required 38 states, asserting its place as part of the U.S. Constitution, though this proclamation has been disputed, as it contradicts established legal opinions and past judicial decisions.

Despite Biden's rather bizarre declaration, legal opinions and Supreme Court rulings suggest the ERA has not been constitutionally ratified, as Breitbart reports.

The ERA, initially proposed by Congress in 1972, needed ratification by 38 states to be incorporated as part of the Constitution.

Congress originally set a seven-year deadline for this process, ending in 1979, and subsequently extended it by three years to 1982. However, by 1979, only 35 states had agreed to the ERA, while five states had retracted their approval.

Judicial Opinions on ERA Ratification

In 1921, the Supreme Court in Dillon v. Gloss validated Congress's authority to impose time constraints on constitutional amendments.

This principle was pertinent to the ERA, as only a simple majority vote facilitated the extension beyond the original deadline. This extension's constitutional validity was questioned, contributing to the legal debate.

By 1982, the remaining states had not ratified the ERA, thus, it failed to achieve the necessary state endorsements. In a 1977 opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) during President Carter's tenure, it was stated that although Congress might have the power to prolong the deadline, the manner in which it was conducted might have been unconstitutional without a supermajority.

The legal interpretations persisted over the years. OLC opinions in both 2020 and 2022, reaffirmed under President Biden, determined that the ERA had not been legally ratified according to constitutional requirements.

Biden's Declaration Sparks Controversy

Despite these comprehensive legal standpoints, President Biden declared the ratification of the ERA on Jan. 17 without any new legal justification or alteration of previous OLC assessments. This pronouncement was met with criticism and potential legal challenges.

Key political figures, such as ambassador Ken Blackwell, have been outspoken in criticism. He described Biden's statement as a direct challenge to democratic principles and the rule of law, highlighting that the declaration disregarded previous rulings and the election outcomes.

Blackwell held Biden responsible for overstepping boundaries while being transitioned out of office, emphasizing the perceived unlawfulness of such a stance.

Possible Reversal and Legal Repercussions

With President-elect Trump poised to assume office on Jan. 20, there is an anticipation of a reversal of Biden's announcement regarding the ERA. Trump's administration is expected to reinstate the legal opinions determining the ERA's non-ratification.

This development lays the groundwork for potential legal challenges that might advance to the Supreme Court for a definitive resolution. Such legal proceedings would further scrutinize the constitutional framework surrounding amendment ratifications.

The broader implication is a renewed examination of how constitutional amendments can be processed and interpreted. This carries significance not just for legal scholars but also for a political landscape frequently shaped by constitutional interpretations.

Understanding Historical Context of the ERA

The ERA's tumultuous journey has spanned decades since its initial introduction. Its premise aimed at securing equal rights regardless of sex, a movement spearheaded in the early 20th century and finding renewed vigor amidst late 20th-century advocacy.

This controversy reignites discussions around women's rights, legislative authority, and constitutional law, intrinsic to understanding ongoing and future policy debates.

The dispute over ERA ratification represents more than a legal technicality; it embodies a broader societal challenge to gender equality.

Regardless of potential outcomes, this incident underscores the intricate legal architectures that govern constitutional amendments and their profound implications on governance and civil liberties.