The Integrity of our Constitution
Since its ratification more than 230 years ago, our Constitution has served as the basis of our system of government, framing the rule of law Americans live by today. The separation of powers among the three branches of our government – legislative, judicial, and executive – are specifically and carefully designed to provide checks and balances on government power. The process for amending the Constitution, is also clearly defined. In fact, one of the first things our founders and the states did was recognize the need to protect the rights of Americans, using this amendment process with 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights.
Because so many emigrated to America in search of religious freedom, the first amendment prohibited restrictions based on religion. Recently, two cases addressing this topic, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrisey-Berru and St. James Catholic School v. Biel, have made their way to the Supreme Court. In both cases, private religious schools are being sued for choosing educators who embody their religious teachings – under an existing Supreme Court precedent known as the "ministerial exception." This important precedent ensures the children who attend religious schools are being taught the values their parents sent them to learn. Should this precedent be struck down, it would defeat the very purpose of these schools. Because of the importance of maintaining the freedom of religion in private schools, I have signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, urging them to reaffirm the ministerial exception.
In order to maintain the integrity of the Constitution, we must always be mindful to adhere to it. In order to amend the Constitution legislatively, a resolution must be proposed and receive two-thirds support in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. After this step, the proposed amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures. In 1972, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which would amend the Constitution to guarantee equal rights regardless of sex (already enshrined by the 14th amendment), passed the House and Senate with the required number of votes and proceeded to the next step to be ratified by the states. However, the resolution proposing the ERA to the states explicitly provided a seven-year deadline for state ratification. That deadline expired in 1979.
This week the House debated H.J.Res. 79, a resolution to retroactively remove the 1979 deadline for ratifying the ERA. This proposal has serious consequences as it not only revives the expired resolution, H.J.Res. 79 also does not require the codified two-thirds majority needed to amend the Constitution. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has stated since the ERA deadline expired, the process for proposing the amendment must start over as well. Although I find myself rarely agreeing with Justice Ginsberg, the case is clear and I voted against this resolution. H.J.Res. 79 passed in the House with a vote of 232-183, not coming close to receiving a two-thirds majority.
We do not move our country forward by working around the Constitution. Instead, we must live up to the Constitution and use it as a guide for our laws. I took an oath to uphold this treasured document and all that it entails, and I will continue to be unwavering in my support for it.