Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uiucdcs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!renner From: renner@uiucdcs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: ERA Message-ID: <31600092@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Sat, 6-Oct-84 23:48:00 EDT Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.31600092 Posted: Sat Oct 6 23:48:00 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 8-Oct-84 02:55:57 EDT References: <319@hou2g.UUCP> Lines: 81 Nf-ID: #R:hou2g:-31900:uiucdcs:31600092:000:4596 Nf-From: uiucdcs!renner Oct 6 22:48:00 1984 >>>[Jerome Scriptunas (js3471@hou2g] >>> Why are some people admittedly for equal rights (for women), >>> but against the Equal Rights Amendment? >>[Scott Renner (renner@uiucdcs)] >> My opposition is easily explained: I think the phrase "equal rights under >> the law" is an open invitation to the Supreme Court to issue all sorts of >> ridiculous rulings. What does "equal rights" mean in the context of the >> Constitution? I don't know, and you don't know either. >> >> Change the phrase to "equal protection of the law," and I will support >> the amendment without hesitation. The meaning of that phrase has been >> worked out (to a degree, anyway) through a century of Court rulings. >[Lisa Chabot (chabot@decwrl) > I'm not sure about this explanation. Is Scott's quibble with the word > "rights", and he'd replace it with "protection of the law"? Does he > mean that "rights" is something we don't understand in the context of > the Constitution?--how odd: doesn't the Constitution contain 10 > amendments fondly referred to as the "Bill of Rights?"... My point is not that the word "rights" is undefined in the context of the Constitution. Rather, it is the phrase "equal rights under the law" that is undefined. When I say that it is undefined, I mean two things: that its meaning is not self-evident, and that there are no legal precedents involving the phrase. The ERA would give the Supreme Court a new area of the Constitution to explore -- a clean slate on which they could write whatever they choose. > And just what sorts of ridiculous rulings can we, by Scott Renner's > statement, expect from the Supreme Court? What sort of historical > precedent do we have for expecting ridiculous rulings from the Supreme > Court in the matter of rights? ... I don't want to go into detail, because it would take too long. Briefly, some examples: *Furman v. Georgia* (since overturned), banning capital punishment despite the fact that no two of the five majority justices could agree on an opinion, and despite the fact that capital punishment is clearly mentioned in the 5th Amendment and so could not have been considered "cruel and unusual" by the framers of the 8th. *Miranda v. Arizona* (or any of the other "incorporationist" decisions) is another example; it is widely believed to prohibit the use of coerced confessions by a State -- an admirable goal -- but if you read the dissenting opinion you will see that there was no coercion, or indeed any possible objection in the name of justice. (If you read the majority opinion you are likely to conclude that Warren was a lunatic... but I digress.) More recently we have the Grove City civil rights case, which was badly decided, and has been previously discussed in this group. What might we see from the Supreme Court given the passage of the ERA? Hmm... Does "equal rights under the law" require "equal pay for comparable work?" The Court will be asked to decide. Or perhaps Congress will pass a law to that effect, as they would have the power to "enforce the provisions" of the ERA "by appropriate legislation." Great, now we have either the courts or the legislature deciding how much money each person will be paid. How about unisex bathrooms -- no, seriously, there were people making a case for it on this very newsgroup. Perhaps *nobody* should receive maternity benefits from insurance or from their employers, since men can't take full advantage of these. It is no defense to say that these are "scare tactics;" that these effects are unlikely and in any case not intended by the framers of the ERA. The fact is that *you don't know* how the Court will interpret the phrase "equal rights under the law." I don't want to find out the hard way. > I was always taught to think that "rights" included "protection by the > law", but that it meant more too. Kind of like the way we assume if > there isn't a law prohibiting something, then it's okay (as opposed to > other countries, where the assumptions are more along the line of if > it's not allowed by the law, then it's not okay). I'd rather have > "rights" than mere "protection by the law". Agreed, but that's not the issue. I am, and always have been in favor of equal rights regardless of sex. I just think that the wording of the amendment needs to be changed to something already defined by precedent (such as "equal protection of the laws"), or to something else which will not admit of so many possible interpretations. Scott Renner {pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!renner