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