Exhibits Supplied by Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum (S.J.R. 2)
From Janine Hansen.
I have permission to have all the articles from Eagle Forum placed on Nelis.
From eagleforum.org, an article regarding Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s
book, Sex Bias in the Bias in the U.S. Code:
http://www.eagleforum.org/era/flyer/ERA-07.pdf
CRS Report for Congress
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/97-922.pdf
Submitted Documents in Opposition to SJR 2
SJR2 Equal Rights Amendment ABORTION Connection
By Janine Hansen, National Constitutional Issues Chairman Eagle Forum
If you favor Parental Notification on Abortion or oppose tax funded abortions you must
oppose SJR2 Equal Rights Amendment.
The Equal Rights Amendment is inextricable connected to abortion.
ERA will repeal all anti-abortion laws, and deprive congress and the state legislatures of their
right to enact future anti-abortion laws or laws regulating abortion, including Parental Notification
Legislation. It will result in Taxpayer funding of abortions.
‘Should the ERA be adopted, it would invalidate the federal Hyde Amendment and all state
restrictions on tax-funded abortions. Likewise, it would nullify any federal or state restrictions even
on partial-birth abortions or third-trimester abortions (since these are sought "only by women").’
Life News: http://www.lifenews.com/2007/03/27/nat-3002/
Totally unrestricted abortions, has from the beginning, been the number one goal of the Feminists’
Equal Right Amendment agenda.
National Right to Life states:
“In fact, many prominent pro-abortion organizations such as the ACLU have argued, for 15 years and
more, that the proper legal interpretation of the language contained in the 1972 ERA, and similar
language in the ERAs adopted by some states, is to invalidate all restrictions on taxpayer-funded
abortions — and, indeed, to invalidate virtually any other law that distinguishes between
abortion and other “medical procedures.”
“Their legal argument boils down to this: only females seek abortions, so any government policy
that restricts access to abortion, or that treats abortion differently from procedures performed
on men is, on its face, an abridgement of “rights . . . on account of sex,” which is precisely what
the ERA forbids.”
“A 1998 ruling by the New Mexico Supreme Court provides the clearest and most recent
demonstration of the very real power of this legal argument. New Mexico adopted an ERA to its state
constitution that is very similar to the 1972 federal proposal. The New Mexico ERA says, “Equality of
rights under law shall not be denied on account of the sex of any person.” The 1972 federal proposal
reads: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any
State on account of sex.”
“Every justice on the New Mexico Supreme Court agreed that this classic ERA language mandates
taxpayer-funding of abortions. The unanimous court held that a state ban on tax-funded abortions
“undoubtedly singles out for less favorable treatment a gender-linked condition that is unique to
women.”
“The lawsuit that urged the court to adopt the doctrine that the ERA mandated state-funded abortion
was filed by the state affiliates of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
(NARAL) and Planned Parenthood. Briefs supporting the successful argument were filed by major
national groups such as the ACLU, the Center for Reproductive Law & Policy, and the NOW Legal
Defense and Education Fund, and by the state’s Women’s Bar Association, Public Health
Association, and League of Women Voters. So much for the theory that the ERA-abortion
connection is a mere invention of ERA opponents.” http://www.nrlc.org/federal/era/eraoped/
THE LAW FIRM OF JOEL F. HANSEN, ESQ., LLC
1835 VILLAGE CENTER CIRCLE
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
TELEPHONE: 702-596-9538
EMAIL: [email protected]
LEGAL OPINION OF JOEL F. HANSEN, ESQ., ATTORNEY FOR NEVADA
FAMILIES FOR FREEDOM REGARDING WHETHER THE PROPOSED EQUAL
RIGHTS AMENDMENT IS STILL PENDING BEFORE THE STATE
LEGISLATURES WHICH HAVE NOT RATIFIED IT OR
IS IT DEAD BECAUSE THE DEADLINE SET BY CONGRESS OF 7 YEARS,
AND LATER EXTENDED BY 3 YEARS AND 3 MONTHS, HAS PASSED AND
SO NO MORE RATIFICATIONS BY STATE LEGISLATURES HAVE ANY
EFFICACY
FEBRUARY 9, 2017
I.
Introduction
Originally the ERA was given a deadline of 7 years for
ratification, beginning 22 Mar 1972, and expiring on 21 Mar 1979. When
the end of the seven years approached and it became clear that three-fourths
of the states (38 states) would not ratify ERA, Congress passed an ERA
Time Extension resolution to change "within seven years" to 10 years, 3
months, 8 days, 7 hours and 35 minutes, so that the time limit was
extended to June 30, 1982 (instead of expiring on March 22, 1979.
However, the Constitutionality of this extension was very questionable,
because the extension resolution was passed by only a simple majority,
while it takes a two thirds majority to adopt the original proposal). By March
21, 1979, only 35 States had ratified, and 5 of them rescinded their
ratification. After the deadline was extended, no more states ratified the
ERA. Therefore, depending on how you count them, the ERA fell 3 short, or
8 short, of the 38 required to obtain three fourths the States’ ratifications.
Whether a State can rescind has never been settled by the Supreme Court,
because the Courts have said that only Congress can decide that question,
because it is a political question and so the US Supreme Court will not touch
the issue. But these are not the real issues before us. The real issue is raised
in the Legislative Counsel’s Digest of the Bill, which cites a Supreme Court
decision, allegedly justifying the position that the Nevada State Legislature
still has power to add its ratification to the current 35, or 30, depending on
whether the rescissions are counted.
[Type text]
II.
The Legislative Counsel’s Digest of the Bill Currently Pending
before the Nevada State Legislature is erroneous. It states:
“Under Article V of the United States Constitution, Congress has the power
to propose an amendment to the federal Constitution and to determine the
mode of ratification. (U.S. Const. Art. V) In 1972, Congress passed the
Equal Rights Amendment and sent it to the states for ratification,
imposing a 7-year time limit for ratification in the resolving clause of the
Amendment, but later extended this time limit to June 30, 1982. The Equal
Rights Amendment was ratified by 35 states before the deadline. Under
Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 450, 456 (1939), the
United States Supreme Court held that, as a political question, Congress may
determine whether an amendment is valid because ratifications of the
amendment are made within a reasonable period of time, even after the
deadline. This resolution ratifies the Equal Rights Amendment,
which provides for equality of rights under the law regardless of sex.”
(Emphasis added.)
III.
Discussion of the Coleman Decision
The Legislative Counsel’s Digest is misleading because it misconstrues,
misapplies,
and misquotes the Coleman decision. It appears that whoever wrote the
Legislative Counsel’s Digest either failed to research the issue thoroughly, or,
instead of being neutral on the issue, was bent on justifying the power of the
present legislature to proceed to ratify the ERA, because clear Supreme
Court opinions hold that the legislature cannot ratify an amendment if a
deadline set by Congress has passed.
We must first understand the Coleman decision. In that case, the
issue was whether an amendment to the Constitution, the Child Labor
Amendment, could be ratified by the State legislature of Kansas 13 years
after it had been proposed by Congress. Those opposed to ratification
argued that because 13 years had passed since the Amendment had been
proposed by Congress, that was too long a time to be a “reasonable time” to
ratify, and thus the Kansas legislature had no power to ratify it. But the
Court pointed out that only Congress has the power to decide what amount
of time is reasonable, and if it wants to determine that ahead of time, it
imposes a deadline. Here is what the Court said:
“Our decision that the Congress has the power under Article V
to fix a reasonable limit of time for ratification in proposing an amendment
proceeds upon the assumption that the question, what is a reasonable time,
lies within the congressional province. If it be deemed that such a question is
an open one when the limit has not been fixed in advance, we think that it
[Type text]
should also be regarded as an open one for the consideration of the
Congress when, in the presence of certified ratifications by three-fourths of
the States, the time arrives for the promulgation of the adoption of the
amendment. The decision by the Congress, in its control of the action of the
Secretary of State, of the question whether the amendment had been
adopted within a reasonable time would not be subject to review by the
courts.”
Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 452-454 (1939).
In other words, the Supreme Court decided that it has no power to
determine what is, in the absence of a limitation fixed by Congress, a
reasonable period within which ratification may be made of a proposed
amendment to the Federal Constitution. In fact, the decision really says that
the Court has no power at all to determine what is a reasonable time. If
Congress fixes a deadline, then that is the reasonable time. If it doesn’t,
then the Court can’t decide how long the process of ratifying the
Amendment can go on. Only Congress can, after the fact.
After discussing the arguments presented by the attorneys regarding
what is a reasonable time, the Court stated:
These considerations were cogent reasons for the decision in
Dillon v. Gloss that the Congress had the power to fix a reasonable time for
ratification. But it does not follow that, whenever Congress has not
exercised that power, the Court should take upon itself the responsibility
of deciding what constitutes a reasonable time and determine accordingly
the validity of ratifications. That question was not involved in Dillon v. Gloss
and, in accordance with familiar principle, what was there said must be read
in the light of the point decided.
Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 453 (1939). (Emphasis added.)
This quotation makes it absolutely clear that the Supreme Court
held in Dillon that the Congress has power to fix a reasonable time for
ratification by imposing a deadline.
IV.
DISCUSSION OF THE DILLON DECISION
Let’s take a look at what the Dillon decision said. In reporting
Supreme Court decisions, the official reporter often writes a “syllabus” of
the opinion of the Court, and he did so in this case. Here is his syllabus:
[Type text]
1. Article V of the Constitution implies that amendments submitted
thereunder must be ratified, if at all, within some reasonable time after their
proposal. Pp. 371, 374.
2. Under this Article, Congress, in proposing an amendment, may fix a
reasonable time for ratification. P. 375.
3. The period of seven years, fixed by Congress in the resolution proposing
the Eighteenth Amendment, was reasonable. P. 376.
That, in a nutshell, is what the decision says. But here is some of
the actual language from the decision:
“Of the power of Congress, keeping within reasonable limits, to fix
a definite period for the ratification we entertain no doubt. As a rule the
Constitution speaks in general terms, leaving Congress to deal with
subsidiary matters of detail as the public interests and changing conditions
may require; and Article V is no exception to the rule. Whether a definite
period for ratification shall be fixed so that all may know what it is and
speculation on what is a reasonable time may be avoided, is, in our opinion,
a matter of detail which Congress may determine as an incident of its power
to designate the mode of ratification. It is not questioned that seven years,
the period fixed in this instance, was reasonable . . . . . "
Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 375-376 (1921).
V.
CONCLUSION
Taken together, the Dillon and the Coleman decision hold that Congress
has complete power over what is a reasonable time in which an amendment
can be ratified. The Coleman decision modified the earlier Dillon decision by
saying that, although the Dillon decision had said the time must be
reasonable, the Dillon decision implied that the Court could decide what was
a reasonable time. Coleman says, “No, only the Congress can do that.” But
the Dillon decision stands as to its holding that the Congress can set a
deadline, and that defines what is the reasonable time in which the
Amendment must be ratified, and it is binding, because Congress decided
what was reasonable in advance. So if Congress decides in advance what
that time should be, it can set a time limit for ratification of an amendment,
and that deadline is binding. Attempts at ratification after the time limit has
expired are null and void, because Congress, in its wisdom, can set the time
limit. On the other hand, if in the enabling legislation, or in the Amendment
itself, Congress sets no limit, then ratification votes by the State legislatures
can go on forever until there are enough State ratifications to meet the three
fourths requirement. But, in that case, Congress could decide that the
length of time the States had taken to ratify the amendment was
unreasonable, and so refuse to recognize the amendment as binding. The
Supreme Court has clearly held that the length of time the ratification
[Type text]
process for an Amendment can continue is a political question and must be
decided by Congress, whether by setting a deadline in advance, or by
deciding after enough States have ratified whether the time was reasonable
or not.
Therefore, the answer to the question as to whether or not the
legislature of the State of Nevada now, in 2017, which is 35 years after the
deadline expired, can ratify, is clearly no. Congress set the original deadline
for 1979, questionably extended it to 1982, and has not ever extended it
past that time. Thus the deadline which Congress set was what Congress
deemed to be a reasonable time in which to ratify the ERA, and that deadline
has long since expired. Thus, the ERA is dead.
1
The ERA is now dead, and only Congress can revive it by proposing it again
and starting the process all over. So Congress would have to pass it by a 2/3
vote of both houses, and then submit it to the States for ratification.
[Type text]
Center for Military Readiness
Elaine Donnelly
President
Memo to:
Chairman and Members, Nevada State Senate Legislative Operations and
Elections Committee
From:
Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness
Re:
Consequences of ERA on Selective Service Registration and Readiness
Date:
February 17, 2017
I am President of the Center for Military Readiness, an independent public policy organization
founded in 1993, which reports on and analyzes military/social issues.
It has come to my attention that the Nevada legislature may decide to revive obsolete legislation
to ratify the failed Equal Rights Amendment. After all these years, this would not be a valid
action, but even if it were, it would be a bad idea for women and for national defense.
The ERA was rejected for many reasons, one of the main ones being its impact on Selective
Service registration and a possible future draft. Only in extreme circumstances would there be a
need to mobilize the nation to fight by re-activating Selective Service, but the Nevada legislature must consider all contingencies responsibly. If ERA had been ratified years ago, instead of
failing and several states voting to rescind their ratifications, Selective Service registration requirements would apply to both men and women.
The purpose of military conscription is not to induct support troops; it exists to provide an effective way to replace casualties fallen in battle. The Selective Service system registers 18 to 25year-old men, but not young women, for possible military service. Actual call-ups would occur
only if a catastrophic national emergency makes it necessary to reinstate a draft.
Should an enemy force launch a devastating attack on America, perhaps from multiple directions, the need to fight back might exceed the capability of our All-Volunteer Force. The system is a relatively low-cost insurance policy that serves as a back-up to the All-Volunteer Force
(AVF).
If Congress approves legislation to register both males and females, or if the ERA somehow
were added to the U.S. Constitution, a call for draftees would have to include young women in
equal numbers. The few women who meet minimum standards would be trained and ordered to
serve in combat arms units such as the infantry, where the need for combat replacements is
greatest.
Theories about equality break down here. Due to physical differences that will not change, the
Selective Service system would have to divert scarce time and resources trying to evaluate and
train thousands of women ˗˗ just to find the small percentage who might be minimally qualified
for fighting units such as the infantry.
P. O. Box 51600  Livonia, MI 48151  (734) 464-9430
Page 2 of 2
Even though some exceptional women may be able to qualify, the fact remains that most women cannot meet physical standards for the combat arms while most men can.
A paralyzing administrative overload would jam the induction system during a time of crisis,
instead of concentrating on men who can be rapidly trained to fight in combat. Egalitarianism
taken to extremes would weaken, not strengthen, military readiness in a time of national emergency.
It is important to remember that patriotic women have always served their country in times of
crisis. In fact, it is an affront to women to suggest that they would not volunteer to serve in
myriad ways in future national emergencies.
Updating the Selective Service system to take advantage of technology makes sense, but there
is no need to create a political crisis that would weaken our armed forces at the worst possible
time.
This issue is about national security in a time of catastrophic emergency, not women’s rights. It
remains one of the strongest reasons why the ERA should not be forced into the U.S. Constitution.
For more information, I hope you will consider this CMR Policy Analysis: Women, War, and
Selective Service
More information is available at www.cmrlink.org.
ERA Time Limit
Article V of the Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either
by:
1.
Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of
Representatives and the Senate or
2.
By a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State
legislatures.
The so-called “Equal Rights Amendment” passed both Houses of Congress with
the requisite two-thirds majority vote in 1972, but the text of the ERA passed by
Congress imposed a seven-year deadline for ratification by two-thirds of the state
legislatures.
Following ERA’s passage in Congress, 35 states voted to ratify ERA between 1972
and 1979. *Of those 35 states, 24 of them specifically referenced the 1979
deadline in their ratification bills, indicating that the legislators acknowledged
this time limit. Thus, the legislative intent was that the ratification vote
expired March 22, 1979.
Additionally, between 1973 and 1979 five states rescinded their ratification. (ERA
proponents say that the Constitution is silent on whether or not a state can rescind a
ratification, so they conveniently argue they can’t.)
The Constitution is designed to ensure that government action reflects the will of
the people. (It would take a blatantly activist judge to uphold a state’s ratification
after rescission, and it would be wildly unpopular.)
When the March 22, 1979 deadline passed without the requisite number of states
having ratified the Amendment, ERA proponents argue that Congress adopted a
Joint Resolution in the House of Representatives, and this resolution was signed by
President Carter. The Resolution received only a simple majority, not a two-thirds
majority. Thus, the Resolution did not constitute a valid extension.
Even with the “crooked extension” no more states ratified the ERA.
The only court ruling on the issue of the alleged extension, the U.S. District Court
for the District of Idaho’s decision in Idaho v. Freeman, declared that the extension
was unconstitutional.
Proponents of the “three-state strategy” rely on the Supreme Court’s decision in
Coleman v. Miller, , 307 U.S. 433 (1939) in support of their theory that the states’
prior ratification of ERA is still valid.
They claim that Coleman v. Miller stands for the proposition that Congress has
broad discretion in setting the parameters for ratification of an amendment.
However, Congress did not include a deadline for ratification in the amendment in
question in Coleman as they did for ERA. The Court noted in Coleman that
Congress was well aware of the fact that it could have imposed a time limit on the
proposed amendment in question when the amendment was drafted, but it chose
not to do so. That is completely different from the situation with ERA in which
Congress expressly did impose a time limit for ratification and 24 of the 35 states
acknowledged this deadline in their ratification bills.
Talking Points Against Three State Strategy:
• Advocates of the three-state strategy know it is impossible to revive the dead
ERA. This is nothing more than a fundraising cause concept for feminists.
• Advocates of the three-state strategy are asking Congress to bind citizens in
35 states to a vote that reflected the political climate 38-40 years ago without
any input on the issue today. What if this were a Defense of Marriage
Amendment that had been ratified by 35 states? Would three-state strategy
opponents argue that such ratification would still be valid?
• Advocates of the three-state strategy insist that judges will accept the idea
that a Congress in 2017 can retroactively modify a prior Congress’ bill, and
override the expressed intent of legislatures in the 24 states that specifically
referenced the deadline in their ratification bills.
• Advocates of the three state strategy insist that judges will not only accept a
retroactive suspension of Congress’ express deadline for ratification, but will
also invalidate five states properly passed bills rescinding ratification.