Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot From: chabot@amber.DEC (Chevrolet Chabot) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: ERA Message-ID: <3795@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 1-Oct-84 11:43:49 EDT Article-I.D.: decwrl.3795 Posted: Mon Oct 1 11:43:49 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 2-Oct-84 06:33:48 EDT Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: DEC Engineering Network Lines: 44 (lost source) == >> >> Why are some people admittedly for equal rights (for women), >> but against the Equal Rights Amendment? Scott Renner == > > 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. 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"? Should we prefer to call it the "Bill of Protection of the Law"? [Unfortunately, the phrase "protection of the law" can lead to some ridiculous interpretations :-) : "equal protection of the law" could mean both sexes have to protect the law (for example, women can't break laws about treason any more than men are allowed to do so). Perhaps a better phrase would be "equal protection by the law", or "equal protection under the law" (since the Law is above mere mortals :-).] 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? Is the "separate but equal" rulings about racism an example of such historical precedence (it's the only thing I can think of), or what other examples might there be? 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". L S Chabot UUCP: ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot ARPA: ...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA USFail: DEC, MR03-1/K20, Too I-earn Way, Marlborough, MA 01752