Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mb2c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!mpr
From: mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Re: pornography, women, ERA
Message-ID: <356@mb2c.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Dec-85 08:15:13 EST
Article-I.D.: mb2c.356
Posted: Mon Dec  9 08:15:13 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Dec-85 07:21:49 EST
References: <7762@ucla-cs.ARPA> <345@mb2c.UUCP> <552@cxsea.UUCP>
Distribution: net.legal
Organization: Michigan Bell, Southfield, MI
Lines: 80

> > 
> > Peter Berke, you are making several bad assumptions.  First, ERA would not
> > significantly affect the rights of women.  There are already many laws on the
> > books, both federal and state, that give women enforced equality with men.
> > There is really nothing to be gained by a new Constitutional Amendment.
> > 
> > 		     Mark Reina
> 
> WRONG!

   I assume that this is from Peter Berke again.  It is nice that you think
   I am wrong.  However, your next 60 lines of text do not specifically 
   attack my statement.  Constitutional theory is nice.  But there already
   many laws, both federal and state, that guarantee equality.  Unless you
   are lawyer please do not try to discuss constitutional theory.  I am a
   lawyer.  I already understand that "nine old men" can change their minds
   at any time.  I understand the two tier test for deterimining the
   constitutionality of state laws.  "Rational relation and Strict Scrutiny."
   Typically, laws seemingly centered on race or religion must pass Strict
   Scrutiny.  While all other laws must pass the Rational Relations test.

				    Mark Reina
				
> 
> A bit of constitutional theory: The U.S. Supreme Court (and by it authority
> so do all lower state and federal courts) uses a number of different
> approaches or formulas to determine whether or not a given state law or
> regulation is "constitutional". The specific test is based on which article
> or amendment to the constitution is alleged to be violated by the state act
> in question. For instance, if someone alleges that a state law prohibiting
> the sale of liquor to minors violates the equal protection clause of the 5th
> amendment, the court uses a "rational relation" test: is there a rational
> relationship between the act and its effect of singling out minors for
> discrimination? This puts a very small burden on the state to show that,
> yes, there's a good reason for doing this. If, on the other hand, a state
> law prohibits sale of liquor to blacks, jews or natives of Venezuala, the
> court uses a different test, as these are all "protected classes" under the
> 14th amendment (unlike minors, who are not a "protected class"). Under the
> 14th amendment, the court uses a "strict scrutiny test", different not in
> kind but degree. A state needs a damn good reason to discriminate solely on
> the basis of race, creed or national origin. For example, lets say
> California passes a law that bars Haitians from health care jobs because
> they have a high incidence of AIDS. The courts would look on this with
> suspicion, as the effect of the law is to discriminate against a protected
> class. Contrast this with a state law forbidding sale of liquor to minors.
> The state need only demonstrate statistically that selling liquor to minors
> poses a health threat (drunk driving, mindless young people, etc.).
> Discriminating against Haitians is different, and probably would not hold
> up. Despite that law's good intentions or statistical validity, the fact
> that it discriminates against a particular nationality would violate the
> 14th amendment. Under the "rational relation" test it would probably be
> alright, but because it discriminates against a "protected class", it
> would fail. 
> 
> What does this have to do with the ERA? Well, despite all those wonderful
> laws on the books, women are not a "protected class" when it comes to
> discrimination suits. If you are a woman working for a company which
> receives no federal grants or contracts, you are not protected by Federal
> law from job discrimination (although most states provide some sort of
> protection). The point is that when the whistle blows, women do not receive
> the same level of protection from discrimination as do those classes
> protected by the 14th amendment. Instead, their only protection comes from
> the equal protection clause of the 5th amendment, which is not nearly as
> strong as the 14th.
> 
> The ERA's sole purpose is to give women the "protected class" status which
> the 14th amendment now affords to racial and religious groups. It has
> nothing to do with destroying the sanctity of families, unisex toilets or
> putting women into combat (The supreme court has already said that even with
> an ERA, congress and the military would still have discretion in deciding
> whether or not to allow women into combat roles). And those statutes and
> regs can be repealed, or sloppily enforced, as the current administration
> has demonstrated.
> 
> I still don't understand why so many of my fellow WASP's have such a problem
> with the ERA. It takes nothing away from us, anymore than does the 14th
> amendment. Maybe neo-nazis don't like the 14th amendment, but it shouldn't
> bother anyone else. Ditto the ERA.

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***