3 added 1 characters in body
source | link

Unlike the ERA and most modern amendments, when the 27th was proposed (one of the original 12 in the Bill of Rights) and sent to the states, there was no ratification period specified. The ERA, on the other hand, was given 7 years from the time it was sent to the states. As such, Congress could, if it chose, resubmit the amendment to the states, but it would start back at zero, and would need 38 states to ratify it in order to become valid.

Were Congress to amend the bill sent to the states for ratification, extending the deadline agterafter it passed, it islikelyis likely that someone would claim the law was passed ex post facto, something prohibited by the Constitution itself.

Unlike the ERA and most modern amendments, when the 27th was proposed (one of the original 12 in the Bill of Rights) and sent to the states, there was no ratification period specified. The ERA, on the other hand, was given 7 years from the time it was sent to the states. As such, Congress could, if it chose, resubmit the amendment to the states, but it would start back at zero, and would need 38 states to ratify it in order to become valid.

Were Congress to amend the bill sent to the states for ratification, extending the deadline agter it passed, it islikely that someone would claim the law was passed ex post facto, something prohibited by the Constitution itself.

Unlike the ERA and most modern amendments, when the 27th was proposed (one of the original 12 in the Bill of Rights) and sent to the states, there was no ratification period specified. The ERA, on the other hand, was given 7 years from the time it was sent to the states. As such, Congress could, if it chose, resubmit the amendment to the states, but it would start back at zero, and would need 38 states to ratify it in order to become valid.

Were Congress to amend the bill sent to the states for ratification, extending the deadline after it passed, it is likely that someone would claim the law was passed ex post facto, something prohibited by the Constitution itself.

2 added 68 characters in body; deleted 1 characters in body
source | link

Unlike the ERA and most modern amendments, when the 27th was proposed (one of the original 12 in the Bill of Rights) and sent to the states, there was no ratification period specified. The ERA, on the other hand, was given 7 years from the time it was sent to the states. As such, Congress could, if it chose, resubmit the amendment to the states, but it would start back at zero, and would need 38 states to ratify it in order to become valid.

Practically speaking, however,Were Congress to amend the 35bill sent to the states that have ratifiedfor ratification, extending the deadline agter it could probably be called upon to simply re-confirm their previous supportpassed, it islikely that someone would claim the law was passed ex post facto, something prohibited by adopting "new textthe Constitution itself." 

Unlike the ERA and most modern amendments, when the 27th was proposed (one of the original 12 in the Bill of Rights) and sent to the states, there was no ratification period specified. The ERA, on the other hand, was given 7 years from the time it was sent to the states. As such, Congress could, if it chose, resubmit the amendment to the states, but it would start back at zero, and would need 38 states to ratify it in order to become valid.

Practically speaking, however, the 35 states that have ratified it could probably be called upon to simply re-confirm their previous support by adopting "new text."

Unlike the ERA and most modern amendments, when the 27th was proposed (one of the original 12 in the Bill of Rights) and sent to the states, there was no ratification period specified. The ERA, on the other hand, was given 7 years from the time it was sent to the states. As such, Congress could, if it chose, resubmit the amendment to the states, but it would start back at zero, and would need 38 states to ratify it in order to become valid.

Were Congress to amend the bill sent to the states for ratification, extending the deadline agter it passed, it islikely that someone would claim the law was passed ex post facto, something prohibited by the Constitution itself. 

1
source | link

Unlike the ERA and most modern amendments, when the 27th was proposed (one of the original 12 in the Bill of Rights) and sent to the states, there was no ratification period specified. The ERA, on the other hand, was given 7 years from the time it was sent to the states. As such, Congress could, if it chose, resubmit the amendment to the states, but it would start back at zero, and would need 38 states to ratify it in order to become valid.

Practically speaking, however, the 35 states that have ratified it could probably be called upon to simply re-confirm their previous support by adopting "new text."