Biden’s Proposed Constitutional Amendments: Examining Executive Power

(DailyVantage.com) – President Biden’s recent move to declare the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as law has sparked significant debate over executive power and constitutional validity.

At a Glance

The criticism focuses on President Biden’s attempt to assert the Equal Rights Amendment as law, though it has not been ratified.
The ERA needed ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures, which was not achieved 43 years ago.
Critics describe Biden’s move as legally ineffective and an attack on constitutional integrity.
The Biden administration admits the declaration lacks legal enforceability.

Biden’s Controversial Declaration

President Biden declared the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as part of constitutional law, although it failed to achieve the necessary ratification decades ago. Critics argue this action represents an overreach of executive power, aiming to bypass the legislative process reserved for constitutional amendments.

The ERA, passed by Congress in 1972, sought to guarantee equal rights regardless of sex. However, it failed to secure the required three-fourths state approval even after an extension period. Biden’s recent action has been labeled as legally inconsequential by several legal experts.

Implications of ERA Implementation

Opponents argue that enforcing the ERA now could remove advantageous legal distinctions between men and women, affecting areas like Selective Service exemptions and pregnancy protections. There are concerns about it paving the way for nationwide abortion legalization and mandating gender identity policies.

Additionally, states such as Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia’s recent ratification attempts have been described as moot, given the validity of the ERA’s original deadline confirmed by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Executive Overreach Concerns

Legal experts assert that President Biden’s declaration won’t have legislative force. “[It] won’t have the force of law,” acknowledged the Biden administration, yet critics argue such actions undermine the rule of law, potentially simplifying future constitutional challenges.

At the core of the dispute is whether these presidential decisions jeopardize the balance of powers essential to the U.S. governmental framework. Ensuring this system remains undisturbed is vital to protect the checks and balances that govern democratic institutions.