Debating the Need for a New Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Perspective

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has been a topic of debate for decades. Many argue that we already have sufficient provisions protecting equality in the Constitution, particularly in the 14th Amendment. However, the complex issue of the ERA’s ratification process and the possibility of its certification remains. Let's delve into these nuances.

The Current Status of the Equal Rights Amendment

While the 14th Amendment, section 1, has been a cornerstone for ensuring equal protection under the law, some proponents argue that a more explicit ERA would provide additional protection. Critics, on the other hand, question whether the 14th Amendment is sufficient and whether a new ERA is necessary.

The key argument is that the 14th Amendment, though seminal, does not explicitly mention gender. Proponents of a new ERA argue that an explicit ban on sex discrimination would provide clearer and broader protection. Critics counter that the 14th Amendment’s provision of equal protection is broad enough and that the addition of gender is redundant.

The Complexities of the ERA’s Ratification Process

The ERA first became part of a political conversation in the 1970s and was to be ratified with a limit of seven years for states to ratify. However, the process became complicated due to an unusual judicial interpretation and the extension of the time limit.

Unlike other amendments, the time limit for ratification was placed in the side resolution accompanying the amendment, rather than in its text. In response to mounting pressure and a desire to ensure full ratification, Congress extended the ratification deadline in the early 1980s. Despite this extension, the deadline ultimately passed without 38 states ratifying the amendment.

The Current State of the ERA Ratification Efforts

However, the story does not end there. Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the ERA just a few years ago, bringing the number of ratifying states to the required threshold. This development has reignited interest in the ERA and raised questions about its legal standing.

Legally, the argument is twofold. First, some legal scholars argue that the amendment was already ratified based on the 38 states that had previously ratified it. Second, others maintain that Congress can extend the deadline for ratification, which they did in the early 1980s. The resultant dispute centers on whether these later actions are legally valid or not. Historically, there is precedent for Congress extending the ratification period.

Legal Precedents and Future Prospects

The legal landscape surrounding the ERA remains contentious. Just last year, several groups filed a federal lawsuit aimed at getting the ERA recognized as a valid part of the Constitution, based on its ratification by 38 states. Despite the filing of this lawsuit, the ERA has not yet been certified and added to the Constitution.

Given the historical and legal precedents, it is likely that the ERA will eventually be certified and added to the Constitution. This outcome would not only resolve the current legal debate but also provide new clarity and protection for all citizens.

Conclusion

The debate over whether a new Equal Rights Amendment is needed remains an ongoing discussion. While the 14th Amendment has been a robust safeguard for equality, the nuances of the ERA’s ratification process and the possibility of certification must be considered. As the legal battles continue, the debate will undoubtedly shape the future of constitutional protections in the United States.