OCR Text |
Show Signpost Feb. 25, 1977 EDITORIA Pages Skiers are happy. Farmers are happy. Ranchers are happy. In general, all citizens are happy. But not satisfied. The new fallen snow is good for the added moisture that is needed. But the drought or the dry spell isn't over yet. One little storm cannot give us all the inches that we are lacking in moisture. Only continued storms that are heavier than usual will yield enough moisture that our water fall may be average. Utah citizens cannot afford to give up or ignore water conservation measures. It isn't at the stage when a person needs to use his dirty bath water. However, it is at the stage that we should, as a familiar advertisement saying instructs us, "Need what you use, but use what you need." Dripping faucets should be repaired. Water should not be run all the time one is washing. There is less waste when a basin of water is run rather than a continuous stream of running water. We need to be aware of those situations where we just let water run down the drain for no purpose. We shouldn't stop showering or bathing, but we need to USE the water that we run. Guest Editorial Letter to the editor Editor: To Carrie Stayner, Monty Shupe, Evelyn Waldrop, Mike Fither, and Resident Hall Council. On behalf of the Supreme Court of WSC, may I publicly apologize for the error in Tuesday's Signpost. The error is that it (the case) is anarraignment-discussion-trial, whatever word would best fit a group of people getting together to discuss a misunderstanding (group therapy?). It was an error that the word "trial" was used and printed. We of the Supreme Court apologize. Carla E. Burgess Justice WSC Supreme Court Re : EQUAL RIGHTS By La Von B. Carroll. Ph.D. Asst. Dean The editorial by Ms. Lee Ann Williams, Signpost, Feb. 15, in opposition to the ERA shows a serious lack of understanding of the Constitution and the nature of constitutional government. The Constitution is a document in which fundamental principles of American democracy are expressed in broad terms to provide a maximum amount of freedom in the interpretation of those principles. Under its terms three branches of government were established with responsibilities and powers designated to each in such a way as to insure a system of checks and balances. Such had been the excesses and abuses of all other types of governments that the founding fathers and authors of this document wanted to establish means whereby most of these might be prevented, at the same time that a very wide range of ideas and practices could be accomodated. Although no system, including this one, works perfectly, there is ample proof to date that it works better than any other to protect rights of the individual. Although, as Ms. Williams says, the majority usually prevails no single person is totally without some recourse in the case of extreme injustice. To imply or state as Ms. Williams does that the courts are completely impervious to any other influence or are ultimately tyrannical, although they may temporarily exert impressive power, is to seriously mistate the case and ignore evidence to the contrary. Courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, are supposed to interpret and inforce the law to the best of their understanding and, at the higher level, to review such decisions to determine how consistent they are with the fundamental principles of our democracy. That they sometimes fall into error is a demonstration that they are composed of human elements and their judgments are by no means irrevocable or eternally binding. Any examination of the records will show that their decisions are frequently examined and reversed by other courts and courts can no more dictate the laws arbitrarily and infinitely than any other branch of government. Courts like other agencies of our government are responsive to the climate and changes of our times. "In spite of judicial supremacy, however, it is public opinion and not the Court that has the last word on constitutional matters. Although the justices hold office during good behavior and so are protected against popular political resentment of a momentary or sporadic nature, they cannot maintain a constitutional doctrine against long-range, deep-seated majority popular conviction. Judges are mortal and perforce must eventually die or resign. A constitutional philosophy dominant for any great length of time in the nation at large will eventually find expression through Congress and the President. This in turn means the nomination and confirmation of judges who accept the verdict of the election returns." (Kelley and Harbison, authors of The American Constitution State.) Ms. Williams' contention that the ERA is "ambiguous" and "not clearly defined" is also not based on a careful reading of the Constitution or the amendments to it. None of the amendments are, purposefully, more specific in their directions for implementation. This is left to the individual states where many inadvisable, even silly, statutes have been and might be enacted. The difference with a Constitutional Amendment is that those persons or groups offended or oppressed by such statutes may refer them to a body other than the legislature to test their validity in light of our principles of freedom. Many of the kinds of laws such as the hypothetical desegregation of public restrooms, a prospect which strikes terror into so many good hearts, could easily be enacted by a state legislautre and to suggest that the ERA would automatically establish such regulations is to show little knowledge of and less confidence in the nature of our system. . Furthermore, there is no guarantee, as Ms. Williams suggests, that state laws will address themselves to the problem of equal rights fairly and objectively. What is there to insure that in a state like Utah where there is a dominant cultural viewpoint strongly opposed to basic equality of the sexes that the legislature can be fully trusted? Indeed, it was only the threat of the ERA that compelled the state to order a study and review of its laws in light of unfair sexual discrimination. More than eighty such laws have been found to be at fault on this matter. While I personally respect the viewpoints of others, I deplore the kinds of arguments used here which consist of half-truths, distortions and overly emotional appeals. Such arguments have been consistently used by the opposition to the ERA and serve no good purpose for the ultimate solution of our problems. While I do not for one moment entertain the idea that passage of the ERA would produce any miracles; I do not like to see the courts made into a "Bogey man," and a misunderstanding of our constitutional structure used to compound error. If this amendment to the Constitutional were ratified, we would still have to work out many details of its application, possibly by trial and error as we have had to do and are still doing with all other amendments which buttress our democratic way of life. We need all the understanding of this process that we can acquire and a great deal of faith in the way our system works. Equal Time Now that spring is here, it seems that romance is on everybody's mind. It seems however that in the last few days a number of friends have remarked that liberated women aren't supposed to get spring fever. My own feeling is that romanticism and romantics can fit very nicely into the feminist philosophy; more than that, the women's movement frees women to be rotnantic in ways that were denied to them before. Romanticism does not really mean chivalry and frilly dresses. Webster's associates romantics with imagination; "A dreamy imaginative habit of mind tending to dwell on the picturesquely unusual." A liberated woman has the potential to exercise her imagination more than the passive traditional woman. The traditional woman waits for a man to be romantic toward her; the liberated woman is a romantic herself. She comes up with the original imaginative idea. The liberated woman isn't afraid to take the romantic initiative and make the kinds of moves that romance is made of. The traditional woman waits for flowers on Valentine's Day; the liberated woman sends flowers on Valentine's Day. The traditional woman waits for the phone to ring; the liberated woman makes the unexpected phone call just to say hello. There is a difference between the kind of unpredictability that our mothers described as "playing hard to get" and the ability to be unpredictable in the sense that it is practiced by a romantic. Playing hard to get is a negative kind of action; it generally means to be something other than what you really are. "Play" is the key word in that directive. The romantic, on the other hand, isn't playing games. She is being honest about what she feels. That's why she can pick up the phone and make a call without worrying about being too aggressive and being greeted with an icy silence at the other end of the line. The liberated romantic doesn't worry because she is being herself and if the guy can't handle it, she knows that it's his problem, not her fault for not playing the game well. Being a romantic has always been synonomous with being a dreamer. The image of the young girl, sitting beneath an old gnarly tree writing love letters is a kind of generalized picture a lot of us have of romantics. That image may be valid, but it's also rather simplistic. It does take a dreamer to be able to remove herself from the daily humdrum to come up with the kinds of unexpected pleasures that make her a romantic, but it doesn't mean that all that energy is spent on the dreaming. Romantic energy isn't consumated until it's used. I would like to add that romance doesn't necessarily only apply to love life. It applies to how we do our jobs and how we conduct our lives in general. The true romantic woman is the liberated woman. She uses that romantic energy to fulfill her potential in every possible sense. f. t a, Ell Ml Published twice weekly by the Media Board of Weber State Coilege during fall, winter and spring quarters. Entered as second class mail at the Ogden, Utah, Post Office. Mailing address: Weber State College, 3750 Harrison Blvd., Ogden, Utah 84408. The opinions expressed on the editorial page do not necessarily represent those of the student-body, the administration, the WSC Media Board or those of the Signpost staff. Signpost Staff 1. LeeAnn Williams, Editor-in-Chief 2. Clyde Mueller, Photo Editor 3. Donna Ann Willis, Copy Editor 4. Debbie Carter, News Editor 5. Kristie Barker, Secretary 6. Rick Libby, Managing Editor 7. Lynn Arrive, Sports Editor 8. Brent Aguirre, News Editor 9. Dale Hicks, Business Manager |