William Norman Grigg at Pro Libertate writes:
Four decades ago, one of the most insistent arguments offered by opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment was that it would create the legal basis for making women subject to the draft. That prospect inspired horror and outrage during the age of Reagan. When the subject was addressed to Reagan’s would-be heirs at the most recent presidential pander-pageant (events of that kind are usually called “debates”), only Senator Ted Cruz expressed disapproval. This was because he considers it to be “immoral” to “draft our daughters to forcibly bring them into the military and put them in close combat” – not because he objects to the practice of military enslavement on principle. Having expressed an intention to conduct carpet-bombing – or perhaps even nuking — various Middle Eastern countries, Cruz clearly harbors ambitions the fulfillment of which would require an expansion of the military that current recruitment rates would not yield.
The worst scenario conceived with the passage of the ERA happened without the amendment’s passage. The worst thing that could happen happened.
Let this be a lesson for all of you who might harbor doubts.
The worst thing that can happen with the passage of legislation will happen. It’s Murphy’s Law of Politics: What can be misinterpreted in a law will be misinterpreted, even if the law doesn’t exist. Any political legislation intended to protect rights, unless worded as absolute as possible, will eventually either be powerless to stop the violation of said rights or be used to violate said rights.
Look at the Second Amendment, which literally says the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” and yet we still have people who argue in favor of gun control. The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law…infringing on the freedom of speech, or of the press…” yet now we have talk of “hate speech” legislation. We have the Fourth Amendment yet we’re still spied on.
This is why proposals for a Constitutional Convention is a waste of time. Whatever would get passed there would just be misinterpreted regardless of what anyone said. They are just words on pieces of paper. Someone has to interpret them. Someone has to give the words teeth. The same people causing the problems will get to decide what the law intended to restrain them means and get to enforce those laws.