Oh yeah it hasn't been added to the constitution yet despite it being a thing proposed in the 1970's. There's a chance our next president here is going to undo one of the meager concessions obtained by the civil rights movement and spit on it's legacy

Edit: Pls join protests and stuff, there was a march last week to try and pressure him into getting it included in the constitution but it's been basically erased from media

ERA coalition website

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] gay_king_prince_charles@hexbear.net 11 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Not really. The ERA not being passed is not a personnel issue, rather it is a systemic one. This website for whatever reason seems to love great man theory for heads of state and ignores backing and other parties involved. The president has no role in amending the condition and he has no power de jure on this front. You could argue that he could marshal congress to pass this, but the current iteration of US politics is explicitly designed to avoid any sort of large majority block to protect capital. The president is not the one steering the ship, he is just a figurehead for capital.

[–] ThermonuclearEgg@hexbear.net 13 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

The president is not the one steering the ship, [gender] is just a figurehead for capital.

Normally, yes, but there are specific measures Biden could have done (obviously with the compliance of individuals in his party and administration).

Biden could have, at any time, directed the archivist to certify it, making an official statement that his DOJ believes states cannot rescind ratifications, if he wanted.

Earlier, when Democrats had control of both houses of Congress in the 117th (instead of waiting until they lost the House), his administration could have followed in the steps of the very belatedly ratified 27th Amendment and also made it a policy point to ask Congress to pass concurrent resolutions declaring that the amendment was validly ratified.