On January 15, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. According to the US Constitution, that makes the ERA part of “the supreme law of the land.”

But, say others, not so fast: When Congress proposed the amendment to the states in 1971, it set a 1979 deadline (later extended to 1982) for ratification. It ended up taking nearly 50 years to reach the ratification threshold, and the US Department of Justice has advised the Archivist of the United States against recognizing the ERA as a new addition to the Constitution.

I personally don’t have a strong opinion either way on the Equal Rights Amendment itself. On one hand, we seem to be making good progress toward equality of the sexes without it. On the other hand, what could it hurt?

What I do have a strong opinion on is holding governments to their own supposed rules.

In the case of the government of the United States, those rules are set forth in the Constitution, Article V of which provides Congress with no power to set ratification deadlines on constitutional amendments.

Congress gets to decide (requiring a 2/3 vote of both houses) to propose amendments to the states.

Congress gets to decide how the states ratify those amendments (by votes of their legislatures, or by conventions called to consider ratification).

But Congress doesn’t get to tell the states how long they can consider the matter.

The states took 202 years to mull the 27th Amendment before ratifying it (it says that changes to congressional salaries don’t take effect until after the next election).

They get as long as they care to take.

Congress doesn’t have to like it. That’s how it is whether Congress likes it or not.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — an ERA supporter — disagrees, saying “there is too much controversy about late comers.” That’s discouraging, since settling such controversies in accordance with the Constitution, instead of just rubber-stamping whatever whim happens to take the legislative branch, is her job description.

Next time Congress proposes a constitutional amendment, will it include a clause requiring state legislators to vote while riding unicycles and strumming ukuleles? It has as much authority — that is, none at all — to do that as it has to set ratification deadlines.

Virginia did its part. Now David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States, should do his job and proclaim ratification of the 28th Amendment to the Constitution.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

 

In early 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump pronounced himself “neutral” in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. He also expressed pessimism that a deal between the two sides was even possible: “I have friends of mine that are tremendous businesspeople, that are really great negotiators, [and] they say it’s not doable.”

It didn’t take Trump long to reverse himself — when it was explained to him that $100 million in campaign assistance from casino magnate Sheldon Adelson depended on such a reversal, he re-booted as “the most pro-Israel presidential candidate in history,” which in Adelsonese means “the most pro-Likud/pro-Netanyahu/anti-Palestinian candidate in the election.”

Nearly four years later — after numerous sops to Likud and favors to save Netanyahu’s premiership amidst his indictment on corruption charges, including moving the US embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem — Trump unveiled his “deal of the century.” 

The deal, in summary: The Israeli regime gets everything it wants; Palestine’s Arabs get to keep some, but not all, of what they already have while giving up quite a bit.

They supposedly get a “state,” but that’s neither Trump’s nor Israel’s to give: The State of Palestine already exists and is already recognized by most other countries.

They get a “capital” in a sliver of East Jerusalem, but Israel will  annex even more Palestinian land.

The new, fake, quasi-state of Palestine will be required to “demilitarize” and trust Israel to defend it, and Israel will exercise veto power over both its foreign policy and its internal security policy.

Trump’s offer is quite a shift from his former “neutrality.” As Lando Calrissian said in The Empire Strikes Back, “this deal is getting worse all the time.” Worse for the Palestinians, obviously, but worse for Israel as well.

US aid and military support have turned Israel into a spoiled child among states. It does what it wants and gets what it wants, not because it deserves to or because it’s able to itself, but because it has a generous and muscular big brother doling out money to it and threatening to beat up anyone who questions its entitlement.

At some point, that relationship will end as all relationships do. The longer that relationship continues, the weaker, more vulnerable, and more over-extended Israel becomes.

If Israel’s regime was interested in peace, or even in its country’s survival, it would unilaterally withdraw to its 1967 borders, begin negotiating administration of Palestinians’ “right of return” to their stolen land, and recognize the existing State of Palestine.

And if Trump was really “pro-Israel,” he’d return to his position of “neutrality” in the matter. Even if it meant refunding Sheldon Adelson’s bribe, eating a little crow, and explaining another change of heart to his confused evangelical supporters.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Nicholas Sarwark is father to four pre-teen children. In his response to the State of the Union, delivered on behalf of the Libertarian Party (which he serves as national chair), he mentions that each of them are in debt to the tune of $70,633. “Not because we gave them credit cards to go buy cars,” he explains, but “because politicians in Washington have a credit card called the national debt.”

I don’t disagree with Nick — whom I’ve known for about 20 years — very often. On this subject, however, I do so vehemently.

No, Nick, your children don’t owe $70,633 each to the US government’s creditors. Nor do you or your wife Valerie. Nor do I. Nor does anyone reading this column who’s not a current or former president, vice-president, or member of Congress.

The only people who owe the $23 trillion “national debt” are the people who borrowed the money.

You didn’t borrow the money. They did.

You didn’t co-sign the loan. You didn’t negotiate the interest rates or other terms.

Yes, they offered your future income and your children’s future income as collateral, but that income wasn’t theirs to offer. You weren’t even consulted, except to the extent that 25% or so of you (on average) voted for one or more of the borrowers, most of whom lied to you about exercising “fiscal discipline” if elected.

And their creditors knew that, making them loan sharks by proxy. How else to describe someone who loans money on the borrowers’ promise to go beat it — principal plus interest — out of non-consenting third parties?

No one in his or her right mind believes the “national debt” will ever be paid off. It’s too big, it’s growing too fast, and it represents too large a chunk of American wealth and production.

Sooner or later, in one way or another, the US government will default. The politicians who borrow the money and the speculators who loan it to them are both engaged in a long-term game of musical chairs, hoping that the music won’t stop before they retire, die, or cash out at a profit.

When the music does stop, it’s going to get ugly for all of us. But the longer the music continues, the uglier that final note.

The good news is that after the default, the politicians’ credit card will be declined for some time to come, perhaps teaching them to live within their ample means.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY