Biden says the Equal Rights Amendment passed, but does not compel certification

President Biden announced on Friday that he believes the Equal Rights Amendment has met the requirements for ratification and is therefore now part of the Constitution, but he declined to order the administration to complete the process. in its official release.

“In accordance with my oath and duty to the Constitution and the nation, I affirm what I believe and what three-quarters of the states have agreed to: The 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing the rights of Americans are equal and protected under the law regardless of their sexuality,” Mr. Biden said in a statement.

According to the Constitution, however, the president does not have a direct role in approving the amendment and his declarations do not have legal force. The archivist of the United States, who was assigned to Biden, refused to officially publish the amendment, on the grounds that it did not meet the requirements to be included in the Constitution.

Thomas Jipping, Senior Legal Partner of the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Mr. Biden’s statement was nothing more than his personal beliefs. He noted that Mr. Biden’s Department of Justice had defended the archivist from the legal opinion, saying that there was no “relevant legal authority” that the amendment was passed during the congressional period. .

“If he wants to believe that personally, that’s fine, but there’s no legal consequence whatsoever, and all the evidence points to him being wrong,” Mr. Jipping said. “It’s like talking into the air—it has no effect other than symbolism.”

Aides said Mr. Biden had not ordered archivist Colleen Shogan to reverse her position and release the redactions, as her lawyers had urged. Asked for comment on Friday, the archivist’s office repeated an earlier statement that had declined to publish the amendment, indicating that Dr. Shogan.

However, lawyers have argued that Mr. Biden’s indifference has given the amendment additional credibility in future court battles if it actually has the force of law. In fact, Mr. Biden and his allies are daring enough to go to court to argue that women do not have equal rights.

The amendment will guarantee women’s equality in all aspects of life, such as wages, and provide constitutional guarantees against sexual discrimination. Democrats in Congress launched the effort to add an amendment to protect women’s rights after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, who led the charge against Mr. Biden to secretly introduce the amendment, said that the president’s statement replaced the archivist, and that he was “no longer relevant.” .”

Ms. Gillibrand said that Mr. Biden’s announcement forced the state to implement the amendment and gave people the right to take legal action.

“I’m calling on the plaintiffs to file their lawsuits,” Ms. Gillibrand said in an interview. “I think it’s very important. Win or lose in the Supreme Court, the record is essential now. This is the job of an archivist. He refused to do so. President Biden recorded the moment. “

Mr. Biden’s decision to weigh in with just three days before he leaves office on an issue that has divided the nation for generations required little effort to effect profound change and shape his legacy. they personally, but did not take any real measures.

The Equal Rights Amendment was first proposed a century ago and took a tortuous road to ratification. It easily passed both houses of Congress by a two-thirds vote in 1972 and was ratified by most states for the next few years. But three-quarters of states lack the constitution until January 2020, when Virginia becomes the 38th state to ratify it.

Opponents argued that the seven-year term imposed by Congress (and later extended by another three years) meant that ratification was not completed in time, while supporters argued that the term was invalid. last time. Furthermore, many states that had ratified the original amendment tried to revoke their ratification, adding another point of legal uncertainty to the situation.

Mr. Biden said in his statement on Friday that he agreed with legal groups such as the American Bar Association and constitutional experts who had determined that the amendment “removed all barriers.” necessary to formally add the Constitution as the 28th Amendment.” During his speech to the mayors of the country on Friday, the president said that he “consulted with dozens of constitutional experts to make sure that we can do this all”.

“It’s long overdue to find out the will of the American people,” Mr. Biden said.

The amendment itself, written by feminist activist Alice Paul in 1923 and later amended, is a single sentence: “Equality under the laws shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state because of sex. .” The rest of the amendment simply states that Congress can enact legislation to implement it and it will take effect two years after ratification.

Although the text of the amendment seems straightforward at a time when federal law already prohibits sex discrimination, it is actually a long-standing issue. Advocates say that such a basic principle should be clearly enshrined in the Constitution, not just statutory law, while critics say it would have far-reaching consequences for everything from from abortion rights to the women’s draft.

Democrats pressed Mr. Biden to order the archivist to release the corrections. Last month, Dr. Shogan and his deputy, William J. Bosanko, issued a statement saying that “the Equality Amendment cannot be justified as part of the Constitution because of legislative, judicial and legislative decisions.” .”

Dr. Shogan and Mr. Bosanko cited various court rulings and memos from the Department of Justice in concluding that “the Equality Amendment cannot be legally issued.”

But former senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin and president of the American Constitution Society, a progressive advocacy group, which was among those who pushed the archivist to release the amendment, said Mr. Biden’s statement made sense even if he did not however he is.

“It is absolutely historic for the president of the United States to say that it is already in the Constitution,” said Mr. Feingold in an interview. “I believe and many believe that it doesn’t matter whether the archivist verifies it or not.”

This represents a reversal more than two years after he said that the strategy of forcing archivists to publish it was important and advanced as a way to announce the constitutional amendment. Now, Mr. Feingold said, the archivist’s role is “just ministerial” and the president’s opinion means more.

“Getting it signed into law by the president is something we’ve been working on for years,” he said. “It’s a big moment after 100 years.”