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