A resolution memorializing Congress to resolve that the requirements have been met to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)
If passed, SF47 would call on Congress to acknowledge the ratification of the ERA by the necessary states and facilitate its recognition as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution. This would empower individuals to seek legal redress for gender discrimination and solidify protections currently interpreted under the 14th Amendment. By emphasizing that the ERA has been ratified, the resolution seeks to address inconsistencies in how courts handle sex discrimination cases, which could enhance the legal framework for gender equality in Minnesota and beyond.
SF47 is a resolution from the Minnesota Legislature that memorializes Congress to recognize that the requirements for ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) have been met. The ERA, which was initially passed by Congress in 1972, asserts that equality of rights shall not be denied on the basis of sex, aiming to solidify legal protections against sex discrimination. SF47 underscores the urgency of enshrining the ERA in the U.S. Constitution to prevent regression in gender rights that have been achieved through legislation and judicial interpretation.
The sentiment surrounding SF47 is predominantly supportive, particularly among advocates for women's rights and gender equality. Supporters view the resolution as an essential step toward solidifying constitutional protections against sex discrimination. However, there may also be pushback from individuals or groups who feel apprehensive about constitutional amendments and their implications, as well as those who believe existing legislative protections are sufficient without the need for an amendment.
The primary contention revolves around the interpretation and application of the existing 14th Amendment protections versus the new provisions that the ERA would provide. Detractors may argue that inserting the ERA into the Constitution could complicate legal interpretations and lead to judicial overreach. Additionally, some voices within the conversation may advocate for maintaining existing gender equality frameworks through legislation rather than altering the Constitution, raising concerns about the impact of such amendments on local and state governance.