The Debate Over the Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Update

The question of whether it's time to add a new Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the Constitution has been a contentious topic in recent years. While some argue that existing provisions such as the 14th Amendment are sufficient, others contend that the ERA, having been ratified by 38 states, should be recognized by the courts.

Current Protections in the Constitution

Proponents of the 14th Amendment argue that it already guarantees equal rights for women. Amended in 1868, the 14th Amendment includes the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, which, they claim, collectively provide the necessary protection against gender discrimination. However, critics point out that this may not be enough.

Backstory and Legal Interpretations

A key point of contention is the timing of the ERA's ratification. Originally intended to be ratified within seven years of Congressional submission, the ERA's ratification period was extended due to the unique way the time limit was specified. Instead of being included in the amendment itself, the time limit was included in the accompanying resolution from Congress.

In the early 1980s, Congress extended the ratification period, but by 1982, this extension expired, leading to the failure of the ERA to be fully ratified by the required 38 states. Despite this, some states, particularly Virginia, continued to ratify the ERA, bringing the total to 38 states.

Past Precedents and Legal Challenges

While the current legal status of the ERA remains uncertain, there is a discussion about whether the amendment should be considered ratified based on historical and legal precedents. Some argue that the ERA is valid due to its ratification by 38 states, and that past legal actions should be revisited.

The debate is further fueled by a federal lawsuit that was filed immediately after Virginia’s ratification, aiming to have the ERA recognized as a constitutional amendment. The lawsuit seeks to challenge the bizarre judicial interpretation that led to the ERA not being certified.

Critical Perspectives and Future Outlook

On one side, some argue that the 14th Amendment provides sufficient protection for women's rights. They emphasize that the text of the 14th Amendment, particularly the Equal Protection Clause, gives courts the flexibility to address gender discrimination. On the other hand, advocates of the ERA believe that a standalone amendment would provide a more direct and comprehensive protection.

The issue is complex and involves a detailed examination of constitutional law, historical contexts, and judicial interpretations. As the debate continues, it is crucial to engage with these legal and societal considerations.

Conclusion

The question of whether a new ERA is necessary remains a subject of debate. While the 14th Amendment offers protections, the ongoing legal challenges and historical precedent surrounding the ERA suggest that the issue is far from resolved. As the country grapples with issues of gender equality, this debate continues to be a significant part of the conversation on constitutional amendments and women's rights.