OCR Text |
Show thirds majority. In concert with Senators Bur dick, Hart, Kennedy and Tunney, Senator Bayh noted that: "As presently written, it (Section (Sec-tion 10) undermines the traditional tra-ditional safeguard which has protected the integrity of the constitution since 1789 . . . All senators know very well the difference between persuading per-suading two -thirds of our colleagues of the wisdom of a course of action." I think the U. S. Senate acted objectively anddis sionately in 197! and s adhere to the same Dri pies in 1978. K ; an extension of the f Rights Amendment ratit1 tion period it should i' a two -thirds vote andstat I right to rescind nuisn recognized. Under th ' conditions, a filibuster' not be necessary, and com titutional integrity an(1 (' spirit of fair play Woul()',' protected. ' 1 Inside Washington with Senator Jake Gam within each state for the entire time authorized. We are hearing a great deal about the need to "continue debate on a viable issue,'" but the fact is that under the proposed extension only people peo-ple in states which have not ratified would be able to actively ac-tively participate in the process. pro-cess. The others would have to content themselves with writing letters to the editor. edi-tor. It is not the advocates of rescission who wish to cut off debate. We believe that debate should continue, not only in the states which have not ratified, but in the four states which have rescinded and the 30 which have ratified rat-ified but not rescinded. In the Act, the Senate also al-so adopted a wise procedure which relates to the issue of whether a simple or two-thirds two-thirds majority is necessary to authorize an extension. Senator Bayh argued that Section 10 of the Act, which permitted a convention to propose amendments by a bare majority vote, should be amended to require a two- The United States Senate will shortly consider a proposal pro-posal to extend the ratification ratifica-tion period for the Equal Rights Amendment and I intend to lead a filibuster against it unless states' right to rescind is recognized and the Senate approves any extension ex-tension by a two -thirds majority. ma-jority. The issue is not ERA itself, it-self, but the serious procedural, proced-ural, ethical, legal and constitutional con-stitutional questions which the extension proposal raises, including: Can Congress legally change the length of time for ratification? If Congress can change ed States.". (How right he was in 1971.) Section 13 of the Act specifically spec-ifically authorized rescission. rescis-sion. States that had once rejected an amendment would be free to change their mind and later ratify. Those that had once ratified would be free to reconsider and rescind. No state would be errovo-cably errovo-cably bound by its earlier decision until a constitutional constitution-al majority had been achieved. achiev-ed. The rescission clause was designed to codify fair play and to ensure that debate continued full and healthy the length of time after the state ratification process has started, what is the proper prop-er vehicle for such extension? exten-sion? Does it require a joint resolution with the two-thirds two-thirds vote of both House a thirds vote of both houses as with the original amendment? amend-ment? Does It require a statute signed by the President? Presi-dent? If Congress extends the ratification period, does that invalidate the ratifications ratifica-tions by states which expressly ex-pressly included a seven-year seven-year time limit in their ratification rat-ification resolutions? Since the U. S. Constitution Consti-tution reserves all rights to the states and the people which have not been express -ly given to the federal government, gov-ernment, how can states' rescissions re-scissions be overlooked? Is it right to allow states to change their position from "no" to "yes" but not the reverse? The extension proposal, in short, would undermine the traditional amending process, pro-cess, raise a host of serious legal questions, and violate the spirit of fair play. In sports terms, it's comparable compar-able to a basketball game in which the team that is losing los-ing asks to extend the contest con-test with the condition that only it can score until it wins! It's very unfortunate that the issue of extension is being be-ing intertwined with the merits mer-its or demerits of ERA itself. it-self. Some of the same sloganeering slo-ganeering and emotional diatribes dia-tribes that have marked the seven-year battle over ERA ratification are being used in the extension debate. What is really needed is an objective, objec-tive, dispassionate appraisal of what is constitutionally, legally, ethically and procedurally pro-cedurally correct. In this regard, I believe valuable lessons can be learned from actions which the Senate took during the 92nd Congress to avoid the kind of constitutional fracas facing us today. The Sen-in Sen-in 1971 passed the Federal Constitutional Conventions Procedures Act which, as its name suggests, dealt with procedures to be followed if a national constitutional convention con-vention were convened. Those procedures and the rationale which led to their adoption are relevant to the ERA extension issue. The Act was debated and passed unanimously without the heat and pressure that occur when a particular amendment is pending as is the case today. In fact, the Judiciary Committee urged the passage of the bill in order to avoid "what might well be an unseemly and chaotic cha-otic imbroglio if the question ques-tion of procedures were to arise with the presentation of a substantive issue ..." During floor debate on the Act in 1971, Sen. Birch Bayh (now ironically leading the pro -extension forces), said, '?Let us act now. Let us not wait until a constitution -al crisis presents itself, when we may not be able to deal dispassionately and with wisdom and with such an im -portant matter as amending the Constitution of the Unit- |