Overview
Title
Establishing the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.
ELI5 AI
S. J. RES. 38 is about making sure a big rule called the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which says everyone should be treated equally, becomes official. Some people argued that too much time had passed to add it, but this resolution says enough places agreed to it, so it should count.
Summary AI
S. J. RES. 38 seeks to establish the official ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as part of the United States Constitution. The resolution states that despite any previous time limits on ratification, the ERA proposed in 1972 has been ratified by enough state legislatures to be considered valid. Introduced by Senators Murkowski and Hirono, this joint resolution aims to ensure the amendment is recognized as part of the Constitution.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The proposed joint resolution, designated as S. J. RES. 38, seeks to affirm the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as part of the United States Constitution. Originally introduced by Ms. Murkowski and Ms. Hirono, this resolution aims to declare the ERA valid despite the previous time constraints outlined in House Joint Resolution 208 from the 92nd Congress in 1972. By asserting that the amendment has been ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, the resolution attempts to incorporate the ERA into the Constitution without considering the deadline initially imposed.
Significant Issues
One key issue is the ambiguity surrounding the reference to House Joint Resolution 208 and the 92nd Congress. This historical context may be unfamiliar to the general public, leading to confusion. The bill's language asserts that the amendment is "valid to all intents and purposes" as part of the Constitution, but it does not specify the actual content of the ERA or its implications, which could create uncertainty about its legal consequences. Additionally, the complex legal terminology may pose challenges for those not well-versed in legislative language, potentially limiting public understanding and engagement.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the ratification of the ERA could have significant implications for gender equality and women's rights. By seeking to eliminate disparities in rights based on sex, the ERA has the potential to influence various domains including employment, education, and healthcare. However, due to the ambiguous language and lack of clarity on specific outcomes, the general public might struggle to understand how these changes could affect daily life and existing laws.
Impact on Stakeholders
For advocates of gender equality and women's rights organizations, the ratification of the ERA is likely to be viewed positively. It represents a long-awaited milestone in advancing legal protections against gender discrimination. Conversely, stakeholders concerned about changes to the legal framework, including some policymakers and institutions, might perceive potential challenges or ambiguities in interpreting the ERA's application.
In sum, while S. J. RES. 38 seeks to embed the Equal Rights Amendment into the Constitution, the path forward is clouded by historical, legal, and interpretational complexities that need to be addressed for effective implementation and broader public comprehension.
Issues
The potential legal ambiguity created by referencing House Joint Resolution 208 and the 92nd Congress could confuse those unfamiliar with legislative history, as mentioned in the section regarding historical references.
The statement that the amendment is 'valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution' without specifying its content or consequences could lead to uncertainty about the amendment's impact on the current legal framework, as indicated in the section discussing its vagueness.
The complexity of the language used in the bill may render it difficult for individuals not versed in legal or legislative terminology to understand, thus limiting public comprehension and informed debate, as noted in the section addressing language complexity.
The phrase 'valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution' could be interpreted in multiple ways without additional context, potentially leading to different interpretations of the amendment's significance, as highlighted in the section discussing interpretational ambiguity.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text states that despite any time limit set by House Joint Resolution 208 from the 92nd Congress in 1972, the proposed amendment is valid as part of the Constitution because it was approved by the legislatures of at least three-fourths of the states.