WATCH: Rambling, Raving Biden Declares that the Equal Rights Amendment Is in the Constitution 'NOW'

Earlier today we told you how Biden declared via The Social Media Site Formerly Known As Twitter (‘TSMSFKA Twitter’) that the Equal Rights Amendment was part of the Constitution, which would end discrimination against women in the law. We provided all kinds of background on that announcement there, so if you are looking for more context, please go there.

But now, we have video of him ranting about his decision:

🚨 BREAKING: President Biden goes on unhinged, tyrannical rant and unilaterally, unconstitutionally declares the 28th Amendment in effect "NOW."

"The Equal Rights Amendment is the law of the land NOW. It is the 28th Amendment to the Constitution NOW."

FACT CHECK: This is NOT… pic.twitter.com/0fYmL3hh16
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 17, 2025

Ugh, we would feel more sorry for the way he stumbles all over the place, if he wasn’t going out in such a vicious manner. After all, by a certain age, we all see relatives fail with age and it is so hard to watch, but he is also doing real damage to this country on the way out the door. This author will renew our call to have the Biden administration investigated to determine whether and when he was incompetent, with an eye toward declaring certain actions null and void. This is the most damaging lame duck period in our memory.

And this might not be seen by the courts as any action at all. To quote from Jonathan Turley, again:

...However, Biden notably stopped short of giving the left what it wanted most: an actual executive order on the ratification. He simply made a declaration and presumably left the matter up to the archivist.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) January 17, 2025

So as much as Biden is ranting that this is the law of the land, NOW, there’s a real question of whether anything changed at all today from a legal standpoint.

Even if Joe Biden didn't have dementia, his claim that the ERA is the "law of the land" is absolutely wrong. The requisite number of states did not timely ratify the ERA and several states rescinded their ratification. Joe Biden is full of it. https://t.co/ymGx822FE4
— Rodger 🍜 (@catholiclawyer) January 17, 2025

Constitutional Amendments by tweet will be President Trump’s superpower.
— Jon Gault (@swatter911) January 17, 2025

Same energy... pic.twitter.com/kzus1OAoMn
— Grateful Calvin (@shoveitjack) January 17, 2025

Exactly what we were thinking, GMTA and all that.

"Better to be thought of as an old demented fool who cheated in the 2020 election, then to speak and remove all doubt." - Mark Twain, probably pic.twitter.com/Yzbhp7ZVG0
— THE OCpatriot™ (@OCpatriot_) January 17, 2025

Trump should immediately announce he’s unilaterally repealing the 28th Amendment today before he even assumes office. LOL
— filius libertate (@76LibertyAlways) January 17, 2025

Hey, if just shouting a thing makes it so, then two can play at that game.

🙄

If the 2020 vote in Virginia makes it part of the constitution then why is it only part of the constitution “now?”

Because this is politics not constitutional law. https://t.co/vf0GfqNZsu
— Bad Constitutional Takes (@BadConstTakes) January 17, 2025

"If you can't be right, be wrong at the top of your voice" https://t.co/TzjQiw7wda
— Red Kryptonite (@fireflytrails) January 17, 2025

Indeed, there is an old saying among lawyers on how to argue in court. There are many versions of it, but it generally goes like this:

If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. And if neither is on your side, pound the table.

Joe Biden is pounding the table in that speech.

Who are the “Constitutional Scholars” he consulted? They should prominently be associated with this action. https://t.co/gnlMy0vyLh
— Shady Ranger (@ShadyRanger) January 17, 2025

Are the people clapping because they want to cover for Biden’s dictator moment or because they really don’t know he can’t just add Amendments to the Constitution? Either way, yikes! https://t.co/rZY1ztrtLG
— The Stream (@Streamdotorg) January 17, 2025

They’re probably seal-clapping because equal rights or something.

If he is so adamant about what he is saying, why did he wait until the end of his term? Because he doesn't believe what he's saying! https://t.co/daY3zv0Zbj
— Manny (@Manny74753217) January 17, 2025

Seriously, this alleged ratification took place about a year before Biden was inaugurated on January 27, 2020. Why did he wait until there was three days left in his term?

Yeah, we all know why.

Indeed, if you look at the text of the proposed amendment, it says, in relevant part:

SEC. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Thus, it goes into effect two years after ratification. So… when is that, Joe? Is it two years from today? Or on January 27, 2022—meaning two years after it was allegedly ratified in Virginia?

Just under 69 hours until this dementia-addled old man is out of office and FINALLY disappears into the mists of history as a completely failed and uniquely vindictive president. https://t.co/FY4Mbq4Hva
— Richard T (@Arcturus5324) January 17, 2025

Sixty-nine hours? As Triple-Jump would say: ‘Nice!’

“They” call it unhinged and tyrannical to be pro-equality. What a time… https://t.co/396XrUp0fn pic.twitter.com/rdLDmRztmL
— 🅛Ⓘ🅝Ⓓ🅐 (@507LindaALeudo) January 17, 2025

We will answer that. Every time an amendment to the Constitution creates or recognizes a right, it is anti-democratic, including this proposed amendment. Literally any law that treats men and women differently at all, would be overturned even if each of those laws were passed democratically. This almost certainly includes every law allowing us to have segregation between men and women in bathrooms, locker rooms, prisons, and sports. That would be one way to end the debate over whether men who claim they are women can enter spaces reserved exclusively for women—there would no longer be spaces exclusively for women. Everything would have to be unisex under this amendment. And besides highlighting a major reason why this is a bad idea, this is also anti-democratic.

Now, to a certain extent, a certain amount of anti-democratic elements in our constitution is justified. We would be the first to defend the fact that the First Amendment prohibits the government from silencing critics, even if a majority of Americans want them to do it.

But what Biden is trying to do by fiat, rather than by consent. The fact is, this so-called amendment was not ratified within the time limit, and you can’t call it ratified unless you count states that rescinded their votes. So, one man is effectively attempting to amend the Constitution, to overturn multiple state and federal laws. That is tyrannical, even if you think ‘it’s for a good cause.’ To quote C.S. Lewis: ‘Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.’

Indeed, many old laws prohibiting women from participation in the legal profession was designed to protect women from that ‘awful’ occupation. This author is firmly in the camp of the old-school ‘wear the pants’ feminism that believes that if women can do a job without lowering relevant standards, they should be allowed to.

Finally, two people decided go meta:

I mean, which is more backed by evidence?

Biden: 28th Amendment is ratified!

Jerry Smith: Pluto is a planet! pic.twitter.com/fBWunzzQ7M
— Pradheep J. Shanker, M.D. (@neoavatara) January 17, 2025