Eagle Forum Legislative Alerts

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Suggestions for Constitutional Changes

It looks like all sorts of people are joining the game of rewriting parts of the U.S. Constitution. It started with state legislators, and now it’s even extended to U.S. Supreme Court Justices. Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a joint appearance at the National Press Club and added their two bits worth of advice about changing our Constitution. Justice Scalia said he would like an amendment to make it easier to pass more amendments, which probably is music to the ears of those who are trying to pass a dozen new amendments. However, Justice Scalia added a caveat to his suggestion, saying “I certainly would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?”

As Shakespeare’s Hamlet bemoaned, “Aye, there’s the rub.” Any new constitutional convention, called as allowed by Article V, would surely attract and include political activists with motives and goals diametrically different from those of Justice Scalia. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg then weighed in with the tiresome complaint of feminists. Her first choice for a constitutional change, she said, would be the addition of the Equal Rights Amendment.

The American people, the mainstream media, and state legislators spent ten years (1972 to 1982) considering the proposed Equal Rights Amendment. They then let it die after it failed to get the (38) states that are needed to ratify a new amendment. ERA was marketed as something that would give new rights to American women (whom the feminist falsely claim are oppressed by the patriarchy), but that phony sales talk failed. ERA calls for “equality of rights … on account of sex,” so it is now beyond dispute that ERA’s principal effect would be to make it unconstitutional to deny a marriage license “on account of sex.”

Listen to the radio commentary here:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Keep comments short. Long comments will be deleted.