0
opinion
Page 4 Summer Nebraskan, Thursday, July 20, 1978
ERA extension unconstitutional, une
thical
Editor's Note: The following guest opinion was
written by Michael Gibson, senior journalism and
political science major from Omaha.
On Aug. 8, 1974, Richard Nixon resigned, still
unsure why Americans were so aghast at his secret
Cambodian invasion, Watergate coverup, and other
actions he had taken to preserve "national security."
He did not understand that, even for a President, the
ends do not justify the means.
Nor do they for the Equal Rights Amendment. But
today, unable to secure approval of their amendment
through proper Constitutional procedures, ERA
supporters are demanding that those procedures be
violated or drastically altered so their unpopular and
unwise amendment might be adopted.
Constitutional amendments are so important they
require overwhelming popular support: approval by
Congress and by three-fourths of the states (i.e. 38).
According to the Supreme Court, this showing of
support must be "sufficiently contemporaneous" to
reflect the will of the approving 38 states "at relatively
the. same period," interpreted as seven years.
Thus, Congress approved the ERA in 1972 with the
standard clause requiring ratification by the states
within seven years. That March 22, 1979 deadline is
near and ERA supporters are pressuring Congress to
extend it another seven years, which would violate the
requirement for a contemporaneous consensus in more
ways than one.
Their demand should be denied. It as bad enough
that many state legislatures casually approved the
ERA, often without the extensive floor debate needed
to examine such an important measure. Hawaii ratified
it only hours after Congress did; Nebraska's approval
was so hurried that a mistake was made, forcing a
revote a week later.
Not surprisingly, the more ERA has been examined,
the weaker support for it has become. In the three
months after it left Congress, 20 states voted approval,
but in the six years following that period of initial
exuberance, only 15 additional states have joned them.
Still ERA supporters demand that Congress allow
states like Illinois and Florida which have repeatedly
rejected the amendment to reconsider their votes for
another seven years. No other amendment has needed
more than four years to be approved (the average time
is about 19 months); ERA supporters demand 14 years.
Sensing defeat with two outs in the bottom of the ninth,
they want to change the rules to add another nine
innings.
While they want another nine times at bat, however,
they insist that their opposition should be barred from
scoring. Nebraska, Idaho and Tennessee, upon more
careful consideration of ERA's follies, have rexcinded
earlier ratification votes, but Congress has been asked
to count those states as having approved the
amendment. In essence, ERA supporters want
legislatures to reconsider "no" votes on ERA for 14
years without being able to ever recondsider a "yes"
vote.
In short, the means used to adopt the ERA are at
worst unconstitutional, probably unethical, and at best
highly questionable. The amendment itself is no better.
Why do we need an amendment stating "equal
protection under the law should not be denied on
account of sex," when the 14th Amendment mandates
that no state shall "deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the law"? Of what
value is sheer repetition?
Yes, there are many laws which discriminate
against women and not a few cases of reverse
discrimination against men but only new legislation
and court battles will overturn them, whether the ERA
passes or not. ERA supporters say the special emphasis
on sex is needed as if we need separate amendments
for race, creed and color as well but the only effect
that emphasis would have is more of the absurd
bending over backwards that has characterized recent
court decisions on "equality."
For example, an April Supreme Court ruling said that
women and men must be charged equally in pension
plans, although insurance tables show women live
longer, collect more from pension funds, which makes
plans for them more expensive than for men.
Few people today are so inhumane as to agree with
the Greek playwrite Euripides, who 3000 years ago
asked
Why hast thou, Zeus, put women in the world?
They are a curse on men!
For if we wished to propogate the race,
There should have been a better way to do it.
But Euripides was half-right. Propogating the
equality of women and men is a noble and a necessary
goal but there should be a better way of doing H than
the Equal Rights Amendment.
Aid to private schools
allows freedom of choice
Regarding the editorial opinion, "Pro
posed financial aid system to benefit few
at others' expense," (July 13), I would
like to suggest some other aspects of the
recent proposal of the Nebraska Coordi
nating Commission for Postsecondary
Education.
Rather than "benefitting few at
others' expense," the proposal would
only correct the inequities of the present
V
letter
system of state financial aid to college
students.
By providing state aid to students who
choose to attend private colleges, the
proposed financial aid formula would
allow Nebraska students greater free
dom of choice, and an opportunity to
determine what type of educational
experience they want without being
forced to attend a state university for
financial considerations only.
As to the problem of the possible
constitutional violation of the proposal, it
requires but the slightest perspicacity to
see that it is a fiction: state aid would
benefit the student, not the church, in
the case of church-related schools.
Opposition to the proposal can only be
construed as narrow-minded prejudice
against educational freedom of choice.
The taxpayers of Nebraska support the
University system University students
are the ones who "benefit at others'
expense."
Paul Tyson,
visiting student
Do an College
STANDARD
QUE PLACE
STANDARD
Mid-Summer Tune-Up Special
Tune-up Special includes labor, points, condenser, and
spark plugs for most domestic and imported cars. Offer
is good with this coupon untill Aug. 2.
Four cylinder $28.50
Six cylinder $33.50
Eight cylinder $3cT.50
Que Place Standard offers not only full service gas,
but self-service gas (Reg. 61.9 and Unleaded 65.9). We
also stock Quaker State oil and a complete line of Quaker
State oil filters.
Stop in and see us for your automotive needs.
Open 7 days a week: 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Mon.-Fri.
8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Sat.
12 p.m. to 6 p.m. Sun.
Ph. 475-8619
1648 Q
Minium mmn
,
..........................a
1
ltMIMtHIMll1MIIg
a
lliililOll
Tonight's nigM-mar:
U of N's bud9e.
t:::::::::::::::::::
::::;:::;::z;;::::;;:::::l" " " r " ,!I?rim.-!n;;::;::;;;Enn!irn;:;;:;::rK:;::;::::::
::::::::: c V j Krcx:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::v::::::::::::
:::::::::fcVn t:::::::::::::::i
mr bed a
1 E:::
K)AE LAN K 1 TCT
ui tx- x - ; u v " i vi
'."""Wl f'.'.'.'.M
WJ r
E::::::::::::::::::::wr.:::::::::f c
lilllliiloillP
........ ................. .....
:HH::i:::i:::::::::H:K:::::!
lllllllii1
Him iHiHiHiHlMIIIHiHHiiliil
.ft:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
f I:::::::::"?::::::::::::::::::::::
I IHHH-O:::::::::::::::::::::::
3f II
::::::::::: f
11
mm.
BIRDS OF A FEATHER
FLOCK TOGETHER.
Ill
4
EIEICENSTOCrC NATUEE
Fbotloose fijfFancy
1 219 F St. Rampark Bldg. 432-6119
