> In December the National Archivist, which is tasked with certifying and publishing new amendments, said it could not add the ERA to the U.S. Constitution.
> The National Archivist weighed in on Dec. 17, 2024, saying the ERA cannot be certified as part of the Constitution due to "established legal, judicial and procedural decisions."
I am not a fan of sex based discrimination either, but given these very clear assessments from the National Archivist, what is the point of Biden's statement? To me it feels irresponsible, since it can sow distrust in institutions and chaos that is unproductive, when different people/groups argue over something as fundamental as what is in the constitution. Is it possible this is an inadvertent gaffe, rather than something intentional?
> In December the National Archivist, which is tasked with certifying and publishing new amendments, said it could not add the ERA to the U.S. Constitution.
> The National Archivist weighed in on Dec. 17, 2024, saying the ERA cannot be certified as part of the Constitution due to "established legal, judicial and procedural decisions."
I am not a fan of sex based discrimination either, but given these very clear assessments from the National Archivist, what is the point of Biden's statement? To me it feels irresponsible, since it can sow distrust in institutions and chaos that is unproductive, when different people/groups argue over something as fundamental as what is in the constitution. Is it possible this is an inadvertent gaffe, rather than something intentional?