Whereas article V of the Constitution of the United States gives two-thirds of the Senate and two-thirds of the House of Representatives the power to propose constitutional amendments and their mode of ratification by the States; Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States in Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921) unanimously held that Congress may, in proposing a constitutional amendment, incorporate a definite period for ratification [that] shall be fixed, so that all may know what it is and speculation on what is a reasonable time may be avoided … ; Whereas the Supreme Court in the Dillon v. Gloss decision held that whether Congress uses its power to include such a definite deadline was “a matter of detail which Congress may determine as an incident of its power to designate the mode of ratification” of an amendment, which mode Congress has always dictated in the proposing clause of a resolution; Whereas House Joint Resolution 208, 92nd Congress, referred to in this resolution as the Equal Rights Amendment Resolution contained a ratification deadline of 7 years in the proposing clause of the resolution, as has every constitutional amendment submitted by Congress to the States since 1960, and proposed an amendment referred to in this resolution as the Equal Rights Amendment ; Whereas, in Illinois v. Ferriero, No. 21–5096 (D.C. Cir. 2023), a unanimous ruling issued on February 28, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the claim of the Attorneys General of Illinois and Nevada that a deadline in a proposing clause is not effective, with the court calling that claim unpersuasive and observing that if that were the case, then the specification of the mode of ratification in every amendment in our Nation's history would also be inoperative