Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site frog.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!tdh
From: tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Libertarians and ERA
Message-ID: <174@frog.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Apr-85 13:03:38 EST
Article-I.D.: frog.174
Posted: Tue Apr 16 13:03:38 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Apr-85 06:32:58 EST
Reply-To: frog!tdh
Organization: Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA
Lines: 16

>Does the ERA contain provisions requiring
>private sector employers not to discriminate against women or other
>anti-liberty clauses?

No, it didn't, just like most of the Constitution.  But how many
honest judges do you know of?  If it isn't "social policy" or "in
the compelling interest of society", it's whatever they happen to
be excreting at the moment.  You can't merely appoint the right
judges.  You have to go out of your way to keep them from fouling 
up.  (Surely that's possible!)

I suppose that a diminished need for judges would help keep
incompetents like Boston's Zobel out.  Then maybe a cleanly-worded
ERA wouldn't be so dangerous.

Is there a new ERA??