MÁS PROBLEMAS PARA LA IMAGEN DE RAMFIS TRUJILLO. La junta de ética de la ciudad de READING, PA se reunió el miércoles y votó 4-0 para aprobar una orden final tal como está escrita para la queja 18-0924.

Alcalde de Reading censurado por violar el código de ética de la ciudad

Wally Scott utilizó las instalaciones de la ciudad para promover al candidato presidencial de República Dominicana en 2018

CIUDADANO DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS presentó la queja en septiembre de 2018

La junta de ética de la ciudad se reunió el miércoles y votó 4-0 para aprobar una orden final tal como está escrita para la queja 18-0924. Schlegel no quiso comentar si la acción de la junta estuvo relacionada con su queja.

El tema de la queja y la naturaleza de la queja permanecen confidenciales hasta que la orden final se publique.

Una vez que se emite la orden final, el sujeto tiene 10 días para pedirle a la junta que reconsidere su decisión. Si no se realiza ninguna solicitud, se libera el pedido.

Scott no pudo ser contactado para hacer comentarios el miércoles por la noche.

Trujillo se dirigió a una multitud de personas del interior del Ayuntamiento el 12 de mayo de 2018.

DEMANADA 

TRIBUNAL SUPERIOR                    

ELECTORAL SECRETERIA                              
GENERAL

ROL DE AUDIENCIA PÚBLICA - 11/26/19

EXPEDIENTÉ NUM 

TSE-070-2019

Objetivo: Demanda en nulidad de convocatoria(s) 

Jose Leonelo Abreu Aguilera 

Francisco Emilio Lopez Diaz 

Julian Alonso Rivas Amezquita 

Y compartes

                           Vs. 

Partido Nacional Voluntad Ciudadana ( PNVC) y el Senor Juan Alberto Cohen Sander

DEMANADA 
TRIBUNAL SUPERIOR                    

ELECTORAL SECRETERIA                                   GENERAL

ROL DE AUDIENCIA PÚBLICA 

EXPEDIENTÉ NUM 

TSE-070-2019

Objetivo: Demanda en nulidad de convocatoria(s) 

Jose Leonelo Abreu Aguilera 

Francisco Emilio Lopez Diaz 

Julian Alonso Rivas Amezquita 

Y compartes

                           Vs. 

Partido Nacional Voluntad Ciudadana ( PNVC) y el Senor Juan Alberto Cohen Sander

Analysis HENRY GRULLON 

ASESOR POLÍTICO E.E.U.U.

HEMOS PASADO POR UN VIAJE EN RODILLO EN LOS ÚLTIMOS DÍAS.

PARA ALGUNOS, MI ANÁLISIS EXENSIVO TOMA TIEMPO Y ESFUERZO PARA LEER E INVESTIGAR. DEBE HACERSE PARA ENTENDER EL PROBLEMA ACTUAL A LA MANO.

DESPUÉS DE LAS NUEVAS NOTICIAS DE LA ALIANZA ENTRE VARIAS PARTES, MOVIMIENTOS QUE REFLEJAN LOS ACUERDOS CON LA FIESTA PLD ALTAMENTE CONTROVERSIAL Y EL GOBIERNO ACTUAL.

LA HISTORIA PRINCIPAL ES DE RAMFIS DOMINGUEZ TRUJILLO Y SU NEGACIÓN CONTINUA Y NO SER TRANSPARENTE COMO RECLAMA. DIJO QUE SERÍA

"INVESTIGANDO". EL WORKD TIENE TODOS LOS DOCUMENTOS DE SULPORTING QUE PROPORCIONAN AL PACTO UNA PARTE DEL PNVC - PLD.

EL GRUPO PNVC / RIVAS BUSCARÁ REMEDIOS LEGALES ADICIONALES Y PRESENTARÁ MOCIONES PARA ANULAR TODAS LAS ACCIONES DEL GRUPO PNVC / COHEN, INCLUYENDO CUALQUIER PACTO (S) CON EL PLD.

PRIMERO, UN VEREDICTO GANADOR DEL GRUPO PNVC / RIVAS ANULARÍA CANDIDANCIA PARA TRUJILLO, cualquier PRE-CANDIDATO DE TRUJILLO para CONGRESIONAL, O CUALQUIER OFICINA.

Estoy sorprendido por el comportamiento KF ESTOS

"RAMFISTAS", como lloran por el gobierno corrupto del PLD y tratan de cada esfuerzo para no seguir la ley.

DEBEN LIDERAR POR EJEMPLO.

ESPERABA RAMFIS PARA RENUNCIAR LA PARTE PNVC DEBIDO A LA ALIANZA PLD. ¿QUÉ ESPERA RAMFIS?

EL MARTES DEBE SER EL FIN DE TODA ESTA LOCURA

*Mensaje a los Penevecistas 23-11-2019. Por: Julian Rivas, Secretario de (Organización Nacional)*

Según parece alibaba *(Juan Cohen)* y su grupito de tarados engañó a Chapatin *(Ramfis Trujillo)* con otro acuerdo mostrenco e ilegal por que la reunión del DCE y la Asamblea están impugnadas y el Tribunal Superior Electoral no ha emitido ninguna desicion. Además, este lunes los abogados de la parte mayoritaria del PNVC que nosotros representamos, someterán una impugnación a la ultima Asamblea del pasado 27 de Octubre en la que ilegalmente proclamaron a Ramfis Trujillo como supuesto candidato presidencial, falsificando el padron de delegados y cometiendo tantas iregularidades, las cuales no tendremos mucha dificultad para demostrar que Cohen y el grupo que lo respalda no sólo son delincuentes, si no qué son un grupito de estúpidos que mediante artimañas y falsificación de documentos, se han mantenido haciendo diabluras en el PNVC. Muy pronto Cohen, Chapitin y su grupo de bandoleros se darán cuenta que nada dura para siempre ya qué nuestra firmeza y determinación harán qué todo sea aclarado. A partir de ahí se sabrá quienes son los verdaderos dirigentes del PNVC porque los corruptos, sinvergüenzas y bandidos pagarán por sus hechos. 

Aunque Juan José Mesa (primo de Chapitin) sea el brazo ejecutor de las desacertadas, incorrectas y fraudulentas  desiciones que ha tomado el Alibaba (Juan Cohen) del PNVC con la complicidad de Viviana, Eric, Álex, Marrero, el Secre, José Ignacio, Fabiola, Arelis, Leda, Wanda, Vivianita,Augusto y otros traidores a la causa penevecista. 

Todos estos rufianes son tan culpables como el delincuente de Alibaba (Cohen) que no conforme con ser Diputado del PARLACEN por 10 años también utiliza para él y su grupito los fondos que el Estado les entrega por medió de la JCE al PNVC y con todo y eso falcifica él padrón de delegados y de la Comisión Electoral del PNVC para robarse también el Partido y venderlo junto al mismo grupito que no piensan en más nada que no sea un par de pesos aunque vengan del robo la corrupción y él crimen. 

Estos traidores respaldan a Alibaba (Cohen) en su intento de vender el PNVC, ya que de todos modo sí su jefe y lider es un delincuente todos los que lo respaldan tienen que ser similar. Les aseguro qué estaremos siempre pendientes y preparados con todas las pruebas de sus irregularidades y sometiendolos ante las instancias correspondiente. En su momento, la justicia tendrá la oportunidad de actuar en consecuencia y les sugiero que estén preparados por que nosotros no estamos jugando y los acontecimientos que han favorecido la corrupción de Juan Cohen cambiarán drásticamente, lo que definitivamente nos pondrá cara a cara en la justicia dónde la verdad será conocida y los culpables pagaran las consecuencias. 

El delincuente de Alibaba (Juan Cohen) se va del PNVC junto al mafioso de Chapitin (Ramfis Trujillo) y toda esa claque que ensucia niestro glorioso partido PNVC, que es de los penevecistas auténticos, no de la mafia trujillista que ha pretendido comprarlo.

Aja Smith, Veteran Candidate for the 41st Congressional District Questions opponent Rep. Mark Takano’s Role In Ukraine

An Investigation by various media sources allege Rep. Takano and Rep. Schiff staffers’ trip to the Ukraine a coordinated effort with the ‘whistleblower’.

Why DOJ Inspector General Horowitz Had to Produce Two Reports

Fox News

11/28/19

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has found evidence that an FBI lawyer manipulated a key investigative document related to the FBI's secretive surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser -- enough to change the substantive meaning of the document, according to multiple reports.

Horowitz reportedly finds FBI lawyer falsified FISA doc; WaPo stealth-deletes Strzok connection

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/horowitz-finds-evidence-fbi-employee-altered-russia-probe-document

Explore the Fox News apps that are right for you at http://www.foxnews.com/apps-products/index.html.

The show-stopping development comes as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News that Horowitz's comprehensive report on allegations of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant abuse against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page will be released on Dec. 9. "That's locked," Graham said.

The new evidence concerning the altered document, which pertained to the FBI's FISA court warrant application to surveil Page, is expected to be outlined in Horowitz's upcoming report. CNN first reported the news, which was largely confirmed by The Washington Post.

But the Post, hours after publishing its story, conspicuously removed the portion of its reporting that the FBI employee involved worked "beneath" Peter Strzok, the FBI's since-fired head of counterintelligence. The Post did not offer an explanation for the change, which occurred shortly after midnight. Earlier this week, the DOJ highlighted a slew of anti-Trump text messages sent by Strzok when he was leading the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the probe into the Trump campaign.

How the left is trashing the Constitution to fight Trump

How the left is trashing the Constitution to fight Trump

BY: AG WILLIAM BARR

NOV 18,2019

At 8:47pm

Excerpted from Attorney General William Barr’s recent lecture at the Federalist Society’s 2019 National Lawyers Convention.

I deeply admire the American presidency as a political and constitutional institution. I believe it is one of the great and remarkable innovations in our Constitution. More than any other branch, it has fulfilled the expectations of the Framers.

Unfortunately, over the past several decades, we have seen steady encroachment on presidential authority by the other branches of government. This process, I think, has substantially weakened the functioning of the executive branch, to the detriment of the nation.

We all understand that the Framers expected that the three branches would be jostling and jousting with each other, as each threatened to encroach on the prerogatives of the others. They thought this was not only natural, but salutary.

[But] I am concerned that the deck has become stacked against the executive. Since the mid-’60s, there has been a steady grinding down of the executive branch’s authority that accelerated after Watergate. More and more, the president’s ability to act in areas in which he has discretion has become smothered by the ­encroachments of the other branches.

When these disputes arise, I think there are two aspects of contemporary thought that tend to operate to the disadvantage of the executive.

The first is the notion that politics in a free republic is all about the legislative and judicial branches protecting liberty by imposing restrictions on the executive.

The second contemporary way of thinking that operates against the executive is a notion that the Constitution does not sharply allocate powers among the three branches, but rather that the branches, especially the political branches, “share” powers.

The idea at work here is that, because two branches both have a role to play in a particular area, we should see them as sharing power in that area, and it is not such a big deal if one branch expands its role within that sphere at the expense of the other. This mushy thinking obscures what it means to say that powers are shared under the Constitution.

A prime example of this is the Senate’s unprecedented abuse of the advice-and-consent process. The Senate is free to exercise that power to reject unqualified nominees, but that power was never intended to allow the Senate to systematically oppose and draw out the approval process for every appointee so as to prevent the president from building a functional government.

Yet that is precisely what the Senate minority has done from [President Trump’s] very first days in office. As of September of this year, the Senate had been forced to invoke cloture on 236 Trump nominees — each of those representing its own massive consumption of legislative time meant only to delay an inevitable confirmation.

How many times was cloture invoked on nominees during President Obama’s first term? 17 times. The second President Bush’s first term? Four times. It is reasonable to wonder whether a future president will actually be able to form a functioning administration if his or her party does not hold the Senate.

The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of “Resistance” against this administration, it is the Left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law.

This highlights a basic disadvantage that conservatives have always had in contesting the political issues of the day.

So-called progressives treat politics as their religion. Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the state to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursing a deific end.

They are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications. They never ask whether the actions they take could be justified as a general rule of conduct, equally applicable to all sides.

Conservatives tend to have more scruple over their political tactics and rarely feel that the ends justify the means. And this is as it should be, but there is no getting around the fact that this puts conservatives at a disadvantage when facing progressive holy war, especially when doing so under the weight of a hyper-partisan media.

TENEMOS LA PRUEBA LOS DÍAS DE RAMFIS ESTÁN NUMERADOS, MILTON MORRISON O SU CAMPAMENTO NO HAN COMENTADO SOBRE EL PACTO ..... Y QUE EL PNVC / COHEN ENTRÓ EN UN PACTO CON EL PLD.

https://youtu.be/_I_QzauyiWA

UPDATED 11/22/19

QUE VA A PASA CON RAMFIS TRUJILLO Y MILTON MORRISON  

ESPERAMOS COMENTARIOS DE MILTON
MORRISON. 

https://listindiario.com/la-republica/2019/11/20/592428/partido-de-milton-morrison-y-pnvc-que-lleva-a-ramfis-van-aliados-al-pld-en-las-municipales

El Partido de la Liberación Dominicana (PLD) depositó ante la Junta Central Electoral  (JCE, las alianzas a nivel municipal con 11 partidos y organizaciones políticas.

RAMFIS TRUJILLO ANS MILTON MORRISON VENDIÓ A LA GENTE DOMINICANA UNIENDO CON EL PLD

Al concluir la reunión de este martes del Comité Político, el secretario general del PLD, Reinaldo Pared Pérez, señaló que esas organizaciones darán su apoyo en más de 300 lugares, divididos en 158 alcaldías y 235 distritos municipales.

Los partidos que tienen acuerdos con el PLD son el 

1. Partido Revolucionario Dominicano (PRD)
2. Movimiento Democrático Alternativo 
3. (Moda, Partido de Acción Liberal  (PAL)
4. Partido Liberal Reformista (PRL)
5. Partido Revolucionario Independiente (PRI)
6. Partido Unión Demócrata Cristiana (UDC)
7. Partido Demócrata Popular (PDP)
8. Partido Nacional de Voluntad Ciudadana (PNVC) / ( COHEN- RAMFIS TRUJILLO, RIVAS) 
   

1. País Posible ( MILTON MORRISON)

En la reunión también se acordó cambiar el nombre de la Casa Presidencial  del PLD, para llamarse Oficina del Comité Político.

Sobre la sentencia del Tribunal Superior Electoral, que habilita a Leonel Fernández para las próximas elecciones de mayo, se rehusó opinar sobre el tema.

“La Secretaria de asuntos legales está trabajando para que se siga investigando candidatura de Leonel”, dijo Temístocles Montas, presidente de la organización.

LA NOTICIA GRANDE ERA EL PNVC (RAMFIS TRUJILLO - pendiente de aprobación del Tribunal Constitucional), Pais Posible / MILTON MORRISON ..

CONTINUING RESOLUTION BUYS CONGRESS MORE TIME TO NEGOTIATE ALL 12 APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2020 FUNDING STOPGAP TO PREVENT A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN

Continuing Resolution Buys Congress More Time to Negotiate all 12 Appropriations for 2020

https://www.theepochtimes.com/continuing-resolution-buys-congress-more-time-to-negotiate-all-12-appropriations-for-2020_3151138.html


For the latest US and political news download The Epoch Times app now! https://ept.ms/2mCEjel

The House is expected to vote on a CR that runs through Dec. 20 as early as Tuesday. The Senate is expected to follow before the expiration of the existing stopgap law on Thursday.

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/470916-house-to-vote-on-funding-stopgap-on-tuesday

THE HOUSE IS SET TO VOTE TUESDAY NOV 19,2019 ON A FUNDING STOPGAP TO PREVENT A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN, pushing the deadline for an agreement from Nov. 21 to Dec. 20.

The continuing resolution (CR) comes as lawmakers continue to battle over the parameters for new spending bills, with the largest controversies centered around President Trump's proposed border wall.

Top appropriators are negotiating over how to allocate funds among 12 spending bills, aiming to strike a deal by Wednesday.

The CR would allow them to put off final decisions about how to deal with the wall, an issue many lawmakers believe will drag out the funding talks and require yet another stopgap into the new year.

Democrats are expected to post the text of the continuing resolution and bring it to the House Rules Committee Monday evening.

Some conservative groups, such as Club for Growth, have already decried the Christmas deadline as harmful to Trump's negotiating position.

Why in the world would @realDonaldTrump allow Congress to corner him toward a potential Christmas Shutdown? 

#VETO" the group's vice president of government affairs, Scott Parkinson, tweeted Monday.

A presidential veto of the CR would likely lead to a shutdown.

Last year, a 35-day shutdown began when Trump threatened to veto a CR over wall funding just ahead of Christmas.

Appropriations Committee Approves FY 2020 Subcommittee Allocations

May 8, 2019 Press Release

WASHINGTON — 

The House Appropriations Committee today approved allocations, known as 302(b)s, for its 12 subcommittees for fiscal year 2020 on a vote of 30 to 22.

The allocations total $1.295 trillion in discretionary funding, with significant increases allowing investments that help working families. 

The 302(b) subcommittee allocations are here.

“The work of this Committee is too important for us to sit on our hands and wait for the Senate and White House to work with us on a bipartisan budget agreement,” said House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey. “With these suballocations, we are enabling a speedier and more orderly appropriations process to get the people’s work done on time. 

Most importantly, we are rejecting the inadequate and ill-considered allocations of recent years and instead providing sufficient resources to secure our nation and give all Americans a better chance at a better life.”

What are 302(b) Allocations?

Each subcommittee is allocated a certain amount of funding under the full Committee’s 302(a) allocation.  These allocations, which are referred to as 302(b) allocations, establish the cap on spending for each of the appropriations bills.  It is important to note that the subcommittees themselves don’t determine the level of funding for each bill; they only determine how that money is spent among the agencies and programs under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction.  The FY15 subcommittee 302(b) allocations can be found here.

R.D. Corte TSE DECLARA EN FAVOR DE LEONEL FERNÁNDEZ Y Ramfis Trujillo va tener que esperar hasta el Noviembre 26,2019

TSE DECLARA EN LEONEL FERNANDEZ LADO

_____________________________________________

PNVC Cohen SIGUE DECLARANDO Ramfis TRUJILLO

  “CANDIDATO". PNVC Cohen y Ramfis va tener que esperar hasta Noviembre 26,2019. 

El caso está en curso en la Corte TC hasta Noviembre 26,2019 a 10am

H.R. 5 lacks any religious exemption, for one. So watch for announcement of a "compromise" to add accommodation for religious faith.

April 8, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Jason is 13 and wants to date his male 21-year-old student-teacher. If the "LGBT" Equality Act passes through Congress, the age of consent barrier may fall and allow him to do so.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/democrats-equality-act-opens-the-door-to-legalized-pedophilia.-heres-how

Perhaps by now you've heard of the so-called "Equality Act," a sweeping bill that would declare homosexuality and gender confusion to be federal civil rights equivalent to race, religion, national origin, biological sex, and so on.

This wicked bill, H.R. 5, right now has 240 co-sponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives, and Nancy Pelosi has pledged to bring it up for a vote in late spring or early summer.

Equal rights ratification of Amendment 

The Equal Rights Amendment was passed by Congress on March 22, 1972 and sent to the states for ratification. In order to be added to the Constitution, it needed approval by legislatures in three-fourths (38) of the 50 states. By 1977, the legislatures of 35 states had approved the amendment.

Has your state ratified the ERA? If they have, congratulations!

Has your state NOT ratified the ERA? Please contact your state legislators and urge them to support the Equal Rights Amendment, and bring it to the floor for a vote.

What else can I do? You can contact your representatives in Congress and urge them to support legislation to remove the original deadline assigned to the ERA. In the House of Representatives it is HJ Res 38

 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/38?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22HJ+Res+38%22%5D%7D&s=1&r=1 )

Senate SJ Res 5.

H.J.Res. 79 - Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment.

( https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/79?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22H.J.Res.+79%22%5D%7D&s=2&r=1 )

Jury rules against dad trying to save his 7-year-old from gender ‘transition’

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-jury-rules-against-dad-trying-to-save-his-7-year-old-from-gender-transition

Update: Judge Kim Cooks has ruled that James' parents will have joint conservatorship over him. Read more by clicking here.

DALLAS, Texas, October 21, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – A jury in Dallas, Texas has ruled against Jeffrey Younger, the father who is trying to protect his seven-year-old son, James, from chemical castration via a gender “transition.” This means James’ mother, Dr. Anne Georgulas, will be able to continue “transitioning” him into “Luna,” and now has full authority to start him on puberty blockers and eventually cross-sex hormones.

The jury’s decision likely means that Mr. Younger will be required to “affirm” James as a girl, despite his religious and moral objections, and will also be forced to take a class on transgenderism. 

A brief history of ratification in the states

The Equal Rights Amendment was passed by Congress on March 22, 1972 and sent to the states for ratification. In order to be added to the Constitution, it needed approval by legislatures in three-fourths (38) of the 50 states.

By 1977, the legislatures of 35 states had approved the amendment. 

In 1978, Congress voted to extend the original March 1979 deadline to June 30, 1982. However, no additional states voted yes before that date, and the ERA fell three states short of ratification.

The 15 states that did not ratify the Equal Rights Amendment before the 1982 deadline were:

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.

Since formulation of the "three-state strategy" for ratification in 1994, ERA bills have been introduced in subsequent years in one or more legislative sessions in ten of the unratified states Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, and Virginia( JUST 11/5/19 TOOK BOTH HOUSES IN 26yrs).

Between 1995 and 2016, ERA ratification bills were released from committee in some states and were passed by one but not both houses of the legislature in two of them. 

In Illinois, the House but not the Senate passed an ERA ratification bill in 2003, while the Senate but not the House did so in 2014. In five of the six years between 2011 and 2016, the Virginia Senate passed a resolution ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment, but the House of Delegates never released a companion bill from committee for a full vote on the House floor.

On March 22, 2017, 45 years to the day after Congress passed the ERA, Nevada became the 36th state to ratify it. 

On May 30, 2018, Illinois became the 37th state.

ERA bills have also been introduced in the legislatures of Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.

Learn more about the history of the Equal Rights Amendment here: 

• Nebraska: March 15, 1973
• Tennessee: April 23, 1974
• Idaho: February 8, 1977
• Kentucky: March 20, 1978
• South Dakota: March 5, 1979

Can a state legally rescind their ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment?

Article V of the Constitution speaks only to the states’ power to ratify an amendment but not to the power to rescind a ratification. All precedents concerning state rescissions of ratifications indicate that such actions are not valid and that the constitutional amendment process as described in Article V allows only for ratification. 

For example, the official tally of ratifying states for the 14th Amendment in 1868 by both the Secretary of State and Congress included New Jersey and Ohio, states which had passed resolutions to rescind their ratifications. 

Also included in the tally were North Carolina and South Carolina, states which had originally rejected and later ratified the amendment. In the course of promulgating the 14th Amendment, therefore, Congress determined that both attempted withdrawals of ratifications and previous rejections prior to ratification had no legal validity.

Therefore, it is most likely that the actions of the five states — Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Tennessee — that voted to rescind their ratification of the ERA between 1972 and 1982 are a legal nullity.

116th Congress

Two different types of ERA legislation have been introduced in the current session of Congress:

• Traditional legislation to ratify the ERA by the Constitution's Article V ratification process, and
• "Three-state strategy" legislation to remove the time limit on the ERA's ratification process and declare it complete when three-fourths (38) of the states ratify, thereby retaining the existing 35 state ratifications as viable.

Traditional legislation

Senate:  Senate Joint Resolution 15  (S.J. Res. 15)

Lead sponsor: Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Introduced March 27, 2019; Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Text:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

“Article  —

“ Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

“ Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

“ Section 3. This article shall take effect 2 years after the date of ratification.”

Click HERE to read the bill, and see who has signed on as a co-sponsors.

House of Representatives:
House Joint Resolution 35  (H.J. Res. 35)

Lead sponsor: Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
Introduced January 29,2019; Sent to House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties

Text:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

“Article  —

“ Section 1. Women shall have equal rights in the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

“ Section 2. Congress and the several States shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

“ Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.”.

Note: The wording of H.J. Res. 52 differs slightly from S.J. Res. 16 and the Equal Rights Amendment passed by Congress in 1972.

In Section 1, the first sentence has been added to include women specifically and equally in the Constitution and to clarify the intent of the amendment to make discrimination on the basis of a person's sex unconstitutional.  It is adapted from the text of Alice Paul's original 1923 Equal Rights Amendment. The second sentence is identical to the wording of S.J. Res. 16 and the 1972 ERA.

In Section 2, the addition of "and the several States" restores wording that was supported by Alice Paul but that was removed before the amendment's passage in 1972.  It affirms that enforcement of the constitutional prohibition of sex discrimination is a function of both federal and state levels of government. 

Click HERE to read the bill, and see who has signed on as a co-sponsors.

"Three-State Strategy" Legislation

Current efforts are in support of Congress removing the deadline originally assigned to the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972, and extended in 1979 by members of Congress. Legal scholars have stated that if Congress has the legal standing to instate a deadline for a constitutional amendment, they also have the legal standing to remove a deadline. Legislation has been proposed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate to officially remove the deadline for the ERA. If passed by both houses, legal scholars state that the ERA could potentially be ratified when the 38th state votes to ratify the amendment.

The potential legislation to remove the deadline was debated on on April 30, 2019, the first hearing on the Equal Rights Amendment on Capitol Hill in 36 years. Watch the video from the hearing below.

Senate:  Senate Joint Resolution 5 (S.J. Res. 5)

Lead sponsor: Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)

Introduced January 25, 2019; Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Text:

This joint resolution eliminates the deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. The amendment was proposed to the states in House Joint Resolution 208 of the 92nd Congress, as agreed to in the Senate on March 22, 1972. The amendment shall be part of the Constitution whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.

Click HERE to read the bill, and see who has signed on as a co-sponsors.

House of Representatives:  House Joint Resolution 38 (H.J. Res. 38)

Lead sponsor: Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA)

Introduced January 30 2019; Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

Text:

Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment.

That notwithstanding any time limit contained in House Joint Resolution 208, 92nd Congress, as agreed to in the Senate on March 22, 1972, the article of amendment proposed to the States in that joint resolution shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.