Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat from New York, recently raised eyebrows with her vocal demand that the national archivist, Dr. Colleen Shogan, certify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as part of the U.S. Constitution. This call to action was surprising given that the ERA has experienced significant hurdles in its ratification journey. Originally proposed in 1923 and passed by Congress in 1972, the amendment sought to guarantee equality of rights irrespective of sex. However, it fell short of the necessary ratifications from state legislatures, officially expiring in 1982. Despite Gillibrand and her colleagues in the Democratic Party urging for its certification, they face established legal, judicial, and procedural barriers that have been reinforced by the Office of Legal Counsel within the U.S. Department of Justice.
In a statement issued by the National Archives, both Dr. Shogan and Deputy Archivist William J. Bosanko reaffirmed that they cannot certify the ERA under current legal guidelines. They emphasized their obligation to follow the law as it stands, which presently prohibits the ERA from being recognized as an official constitutional amendment. Previous court decisions have upheld the ratification deadlines assigned to the ERA, which means that any attempts to extend or delete that timeline require new legislative action or judicial decisions. The archivists stated that personal opinions do not come into play; their responsibilities hinge solely on legal precedents.
Gillibrand, however, remains persistent in her advocacy for the ERA, framing her appeal as not only a matter of legal significance but also one of moral and societal necessity. She argues that the national archivist’s refusal to certify the amendment interferes with a clear constitutional process, positioning her as an impediment to what she sees as crucial progress for women’s rights. Gillibrand’s approach has garnered support from various legal experts, numerous state attorneys general, and organizations such as the League of Women Voters and the American Bar Association, all of whom claim that the amendment still holds value and relevance.
Despite this, opponents raise significant counterarguments. Critics point out the fact that while 38 states had ratified the ERA, it did not achieve the required threshold of approval before the 1982 deadline, leading to the presumption that it is effectively dead and cannot be revived. Some states have even rescinded their ratifications, further complicating the path for reinstating the amendment. Online discussions reflect a belief that Gillibrand’s actions could undermine the integrity of constitutional processes, highlighting the necessity of adhering to the established rules that govern amendment certification.
Furthermore, points of contention within Gillibrand’s staunch support for the ERA have surfaced, with critics targeting the Democratic Party’s broader struggles to define critical gender concepts, raising questions about the consistency and sincerity of their advocacy for women’s rights. This discord indicates a deeper ideological division within the party regarding the nature of gender and equality in contemporary society, which may influence the push for the ERA’s certification.
In conclusion, while Gillibrand’s determination to see the Equal Rights Amendment certified reflects a passionate commitment to women’s rights and equality, the legal landscape remains complex and challenging. The track record of the ERA, the explicit timelines established by Congress, and recent judicial interpretations serve as formidable barriers to its inclusion in the Constitution. As debates continue both within legislative circles and the broader public discourse, the future of the ERA remains uncertain, highlighting the intricate balance between legal precedent and ongoing social movements advocating for equality.
