🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug30.183920.10122@cc.gatech.edu> stacy@multimedia.gatech.edu (Stacy Johnson) writes:
>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).

But this was my point exactly.  Interpretation is every bit as
important in law as the writing of the law itself.

Further, I think you'll find that, although the Constitution made
no mention of women voting or not voting, it was *state* law which
mentioned their not being able to.  Had the Supreme Court interpreted
the Constitution as having applied to women, no amendment would have
been necessary at all.

>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.

Again, she violated no Constitutional law, but state law (and much   
of that for "disturbing the peace", etc.).

>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.

Neither were slaves held to be citizens, although this wasn't
called out specifically in the Constitution.  Yet, if the 
Supreme Court had held that they were, US history in the mid
1800s might have been very different.  There were many prominent
legal scholars who claimed that this interpretation of the  US
Constitution was quite reasonable.

>>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.  

The last several Supreme Courts have held that the Constitution
means a lot of things which weren't specifically called out in
it, and equal treatment is one of them.  The ERA wouldn't change
that particularly, one way or the other, IMHO.

>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 Constitution.  (And no, this whole
>scenario doesn't really make sense, but it IS HAPPENING and
>that's the whole damn point.)

But the *other* point is that there may be situations in the law
where it is necessary to recognize that differences do exist between
men and women, and that such recognition does not necessarily imply
discrimination (in the negative sense of the word).  It works both
ways, too.  Having an ERA would have such differentiation difficult 
to justify legally.

>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.

I don't know - any law, no matter how it is written, is subject to
interpretation and misuse, and its original intent may be lost.  I'd 
say that having reasonable, clear-thinking judges is every bit as 
necessary as having good laws.  They go together.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^  Dr. J(effrey Neil Burch)                 jb118@prism.gatech.edu    ^
^  Georgia Tech Research Institute                                    ^ 
^  Electro-Optics and Physical Sciences Laboratory                    ^
^  Atlanta, Ga.                                                       ^
^  30332                 If you are a minority of one,                ^
^  404-894-3628             the truth is the truth.                   ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^