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: <31600090@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Sat, 6-Oct-84 22:37:00 EDT Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.31600090 Posted: Sat Oct 6 22:37:00 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 8-Oct-84 02:54:35 EDT References: <319@hou2g.UUCP> Lines: 22 Nf-ID: #R:hou2g:-31900:uiucdcs:31600090:000:1141 Nf-From: uiucdcs!renner Oct 6 21:37:00 1984 > > Having the Equal Rights Amendment would give women a tool to use > > in court for proving discrimination. > > Wrong again! The ERA simply says that no laws shall be written at any > legislative level discriminating against women. It has no definiton of > what discrimination is, ie dress codes discussed earlier. It still > remains up to the court to decide what is discrimination and what isn't. > -- Andy Banta (agz@pucc-k) This is only half right. If the ERA is adopted, then it will be up to the courts to decide what is discrimination. But the courts will have power to review more than supposed discrimination in federal, state, and local laws. The amendment states that "equal rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State;" it is not clear from the wording that the judicial review shall be limited only to invalidation of discriminatory laws, and I am aware of no precedent in constitutional law which defines the meaning of this phrase. It will therefore be up to the Supreme Court to define the scope of this amendment. Scott Renner {pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!renner