🚀 go-pugleaf

jb118@prism.gatech.EDU (Jeffrey N. Burch) writes:
>gt0418c@prism.gatech.EDU (Shane Wm. McWhorter) writes:
>>But women are not guaranteed the rights of men by the 
>>Constitution...
>
>Sorry to take exception to this, but I do.  Can you point to an
>article in the Constitution which denies women the same rights as
>men?  
>
>The 14th Amendment says: [...] 
>
>Article 19 gave women the vote.

Well, if the 14th amendment is to be interpreted at "face
value," then why did we even *need* the 19th ammendment?  The
fact is, the 14th amendment was not written to apply to women
(and it didn't).

When the 14th ammendment was written, Susan B. Anthony decided
that it gave her the right to vote because she was, after all,
a naturalized citizen.  She was imprisoned for voting, tried,
and fined.

The basic point here is that the laws are highly open to
interpretation, and that is was obviously not the intent of
the lawmakers to have the 14th amendment apply to women.

>Which rights given to men are denied women by the Constitution?

The Constitution makes no provisions for *equal treatment* of
the sexes.  The ERA was a policy which could not be
misintepreted.  

While justices might otherwise be able to cite things such
as "natural law" (ahem) to say, that, for instance, a woman
shouldn't be in combat (and interpret/rationalize the 14th
amendment to do make this call), he or she would not be
able to do this so easily (had the ERA passed) without
obviously violating the Consititution.  (And no, this whole
scenario doesn't really make sense, but it IS HAPPENING and
that's the whole damn point.)

Vague laws which "might" (or "should") cover women "if" we
happen to have the right judges interpreting them are not
sufficient.  We need to be realistic here, not idealistic.

-Stacy Johnson