Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.14 $; 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: <31600089@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 22-Sep-84 16:54:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.31600089
Posted: Sat Sep 22 16:54:00 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 19:28:40 EDT
References: <319@hou2g.UUCP>
Lines: 15
Nf-ID: #R:hou2g:-31900:uiucdcs:31600089:000:633
Nf-From: uiucdcs!renner    Sep 22 15:54:00 1984

>  Why are some people admittedly for equal rights (for women),
>  but against the Equal Rights Amendment?

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.

Scott Renner
ihnp4!uiucdcs!renner