Here is source: "Congress included a ratification deadline of March 22, 1979, in the proposing clause (preamble) to the resolution in response to opposition from Representative Celler and Senator Sam Ervin."
The question is whether Congress has any authority to impose a deadline. The role of Congress is to pass the law and it has no further authority, or at least some would say. But I am not making ERA a central issue. There are so many criminal actions we must respond to
A quick search reveals that because the amendment was ratified outside of the required deadline- it was NOT and has NOT been made into law. If it is, as you say, a part of the US Constitution- what # is it? The last amendment to the US Constitution is the 27th.
That is part of the debate of course. Those who say it is the law, myself included, hold that the constitution does not set forth any deadline. There are various made up deadlines but they are not valid in any constitutional sense. It is in a sense similar to the Federal Reserve. This organization is an unconstitutional criminal syndicate prints up money for private banks with the usurped authority of the federal government. But of course over the last hundred years lots of laws have been passed that treat the federal reserve like a part of the federal government. So in a sense you are correct within the context of accepted practice
There is no comparison between the Federal Reserve and the Equal Rights Amendment. Your analogy is quite a stretch!
To women who have fought for equal rights for two centuries now- it is absolutely KEY that it is understood that the Equal Rights Amendment is still NOT a part of the US Constitution. There's no whitewashing it. The ERA is not law.
Here is source: "Congress included a ratification deadline of March 22, 1979, in the proposing clause (preamble) to the resolution in response to opposition from Representative Celler and Senator Sam Ervin."
The question is whether Congress has any authority to impose a deadline. The role of Congress is to pass the law and it has no further authority, or at least some would say. But I am not making ERA a central issue. There are so many criminal actions we must respond to
The ERA is not a part of the US Constitution. It is not 'law'.
It is the law and it is part of the constitution following the process defined by the constitution
Explain which part of my presentation is incorrect
A quick search reveals that because the amendment was ratified outside of the required deadline- it was NOT and has NOT been made into law. If it is, as you say, a part of the US Constitution- what # is it? The last amendment to the US Constitution is the 27th.
That is part of the debate of course. Those who say it is the law, myself included, hold that the constitution does not set forth any deadline. There are various made up deadlines but they are not valid in any constitutional sense. It is in a sense similar to the Federal Reserve. This organization is an unconstitutional criminal syndicate prints up money for private banks with the usurped authority of the federal government. But of course over the last hundred years lots of laws have been passed that treat the federal reserve like a part of the federal government. So in a sense you are correct within the context of accepted practice
There is no comparison between the Federal Reserve and the Equal Rights Amendment. Your analogy is quite a stretch!
To women who have fought for equal rights for two centuries now- it is absolutely KEY that it is understood that the Equal Rights Amendment is still NOT a part of the US Constitution. There's no whitewashing it. The ERA is not law.
This, from the League of Women Voters:
https://www.lwv.org/blog/100-years-equal-rights-amendment