President Joe Biden's recent claim that the Equal Rights Amendment has been ratified and now constitutes the 28th Amendment sparked widespread criticism and ridicule.
His declaration on social media was fact-checked and rejected by legal authorities, including the Department of Justice, as The Blaze reports.
Joe Biden expressed his conviction on a social media platform that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), aimed at ensuring equality of rights under the law regardless of sex, had been ratified as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He articulated his belief that a crucial milestone for equal rights had been reached, stating, "Today I'm affirming what I have long believed and what three-fourths of the states have ratified."
However, this statement conflicted with the legal status of the ERA. The National Archivist, responding to Biden’s administration, noted that the amendment has not been lawfully ratified. This clarification was based on a 2022 legal opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice.
The backlash to Biden's post was swift and fierce, with various commentators and journalists pointing out the discrepancy between his assertion and constitutional law. Critics attacked the president's understanding of the constitutional amendment process, which requires more than a presidential declaration to amend the Constitution legally.
Significant opposition came from voices like Brit Hume of Fox News, who emphasized the constitutional processes by stating, "No he didn't. He says he did, but because he can't, he didn't." This sentiment was echoed by other prominent figures who criticized Biden’s understanding of constitutional law.
For example, Molly Hemingway retorted sharply, "Sir, this is not how the Constitution works. Dementia is not a magic ticket to become a dictator that asserts Constitutional amendments into existence." Similarly, Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire remarked, "Nope, sorry, you can't just 'declare' the 28th Amendment law, any more than I can declare you dead. That requires a coroner. And this requires a constitutional process."
Legal opinions have consistently noted that the ERA's ratification process encountered insurmountable hurdles. Notably, the congressional deadline for ratification expired in 1982, and the necessary three-fourths of state ratification was not met by then. Furthermore, the complications were exacerbated as several states withdrew their initial ratifications.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking in 2020, highlighted these issues by acknowledging the failure of ERA ratification and drawing attention to the complexities brought about by states rescinding their support. She questioned how late ratifications could be counted positively while ignoring states that had reconsidered and withdrawn their approval.
This critical viewpoint underlines the deep constitutional and procedural challenges that have prevented the ERA from becoming a formal amendment, despite persistent public support and advocacy efforts over the years.
The controversy has not only legal but also significant public and media dimensions. The immediate fact-checking by the community note on the X social media platform and the flurry of critical reactions reflect a broader skepticism about how the president attempted to address a historically contentious issue.
Tim Carney of the American Enterprise Institute pointed out the inconsistency in Biden's approach, comparing it to previous controversial decisions, "Who would have guessed that the guy who illegally and proudly tried to forgive everyone's student loans would have no regard for the rule of law and would pretend he has magic powers?" This sentiment underscores a broader distrust of unilateral executive actions perceived as overreaching or legally dubious.
The unfolding debate over Biden’s announcement and its legal ramifications continues to stir discussions on the proper processes for constitutional amendments and the ongoing fight for equal rights in America. It underscores the complex intersection between presidential declarations, constitutional law, and public expectations in a politically polarized environment.
