OCR Text |
Show The Paper That Dares To Take A Stand December 30, 1976 The Utah Independent Page Panama Canal: Fallacies And Facts 11 The This article, based on many years of study, is aimed at clearing away some of the bewildering confusion that has featured many recent discussions of the complicated Panama Canal question. ..and providing action. a valid Mere plan of the six main of those who arguments a new favor Treaty surrendering our rights in Panama, together with my comments on each of their fallacies: 1 . If a new Treaty is not are negotiated, American interests in the Canal will be jeopardized. Let me say flatly as to such threats of violence, the Canal, like any other major transportation project, has always been vulnerable. It was safely protected during two World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the Cuban missile crisis and the 1964 Red-le- d, attempted Panamanian mob invasion of the Canal Zone. To stress the importance of our treaty obligations for the Canal, protecting has information been from received Isthmian sources that there are nearly in Cubans the 3,000 Panama of Republic camouflaged as civilians and that Soviet-mad- e machine guns in large trunks have been received on the Isthmus. 2. A new Treaty is required if the United States is to have good relations with Latin American countries. In answering this fallacious argument, let me stress that over a period of years the Panama Government, acting closely with Cuba and the U.S.S.R., has been conducting a world-wid- e campaign of vilification the against United States to support the surrender of the ('anal Zone to the Soviet puppet government of Panama. This included has campaign tours by speaking Panamanian agents before opinion-formin- g groups in the United States financed by our State Department! 3. A new Treaty is also required for the continued operation of an open, safe, efficient Canal." My comments to this irrational argument are (a) acceptance of such threats will cause widespread loss of respect due to the United and invite mob States actions that may require far greater use of force in Panama than any previously employed for protecting the the and fb) Canal; safe, open, expression describes efficient Canal the present precisely the invites fact This situation. questions of why should we negotiate for creating a condition that already exists and how could surrender do other than add confusion. VOL 10. NO. 5. SECTION 2 DECEMBER. 1976 BOX 61 8. ALTON. ILLINOIS 62002 Will ERA Force All Private Schools Coed? Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Runyon v. McCrary on June 25, 1976, it must be assumed that ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment would probably mean that all private schools (elementary, secondary, and college) would become subject to a constitutional mandate prohibiting sex discrimination, and they would therefore he forced to go coed, whether they want to or not. Prior to this decision, it was generally assumed that ERA would enforce its coed mandate only on schools and colleges that receive some public money. This assumption is no longer valid because Runyon v. McCraru held that wholly private schools are forbidden to discriminate on the basis of race. There are hundreds of private elementary and secondary schools that admit only girls or only boys. Many of them are among the best schools in the country. Many have built up an enviable reputation over gener--. ations. The fact that thousands of splendid students are graduated from them every year is proof that these schools fill a need in our society and produce good results - in spite of the fact (or maybe because of the fact) that they discriminate on the basis of sex. Girls schools discriminate against boys; boys schools discriminate against girls. Runyon v. McCrary was a case involving two elementary schools in Virginia which were charged with discriminating on the basis of race. The schools were wholly private. They received no public money of any kind. Apparently they did not even enjoy decistatus. But the Supreme Court in a sion held that they are forbidden to discriminate on the basis of race and that they must admit blacks. The Supreme Court decision was based on a law U.S.C. 1981) that was enacted in 1870. The title of (42 this section of the law is Equal rights under the law. As Justice White states in his dissent, it is completely clear that both the language and the legislative history of this law prove that it was intended and designed to abolish race discrimination under the law only. It was NOT intended to cover private relationships. But the majority of the Supreme Court stretched the law to include the private acts of wholly private schools. For more than a hundred years, no one else had ever detected that meaning in the 1870 law. The Supreme Court ruled in Runyon v. McCrary that the mandate against race discrimination is so important that it prohibits even private acts of discrimination, and it takes priority over tax-exem- pt 7-to- turmoil, uncertainty, and graver danger. 4. The timing of the negotiations is very and delaying the important, negotiations will make the situation more dangerous. I feel strongly that such attempt at prevention of informed public discussion of the Canal subject in the United . States is unfortunate. The surrender of U.S. sovereignty over the Zone would place Panama to the in position nationalize the Canal for which the Zone is the protective strip, just as occurred in 1956 in Egypt after the withdrawal of British forces from the Suez Canal Zone. A Treaty that is 5. mutually beneficial for the U.S. and for Panama should replace the 1903 Treaty, sovereignty give Panama over the (anal Zone, increase its benefits, and provide for joint boards for making inprovements. -2 But. ..the facts are that such actions would give away the Canal Zone and ultimately the Canal itself, as well as burden the United with grave without responsibility States adequate authority. Panama has been and still is the greatest single beneficiary of the ( inal enterprise, with benefits from U.S. Canal 1975 sources in Zone totalling $253,130,000. 6. The Panama Canal is not as important strategically as it once was. Let me say that the above illustrates the statement of missuse the which word, simply means advantageously located. With traffic in the close to 14,000 Canal transits annually, it is more strategic now than ever. The voyages of more vessels are shortened, more world commerce is benefitted, and an important element in U.S. seapower provided. What is needed is a major strategic, . the First Amendment freedom of association, the Fifth Amendment right of due process, the constitutional right of privacy, and the right of parents to select private schools. even Practically every pro-ERlawyer states boasts! that ERA will impose a national standard which will apply the same strict standard to sex as we now apply to race. (In legal jargon, this is called making A sex a suspect or impermissible classification, just like race.) The agitating womens lib lawyers (in NOW, ACLU, EEOC, and HEW) are all following the exact same pattern of bureaucratic regulation and court litigation as the civil rights lawyers have done. The surest way to predict what the ultimate effect of ERA will be is to ask yourself the question: Are we permitted to make this difference or separation based on race? If your answer is no, then if ERA is ratified you will not be permitted to make the same difference or separation based on sex. If ERA applies, the Runyon v. McCrary mle to sex, no private school will be permitted to bar any pupil on the basis of sex; all private schools will be compelled to go coed -probably with "affirmative action ordered by H EW. Although ERA purports to apply only to actions under the law ( i.e ., actions touched by government), the Supreme Court could easily stretch ERA to cover private relationships such as private schools, under the rule of Run yon v. McCrary. It would be much easier to find a national mandate against discrimination in ERA - a constitutional amendment -- - because the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. (Article VI) Even the dissenters in Runyon v. McCrary conceded (in their footnote 2) that Congress has the power to ban race discrimination in private schools (under Section 2 of the 13th Amendment). Their dissent was based on the fact that Congress has not yet chosen to -- exercise that power. Therefore, Section 2 of ERA would surely give Congress the power to ban sex discrimination in wholly private schools. The militant, womens libbers and HEW would certainly agitate to achieve this result since they have even tried to ban as sex discriminatory such school social functions as events. and Father-So- n If you want to preserve your right to attend or to Mother-Daught- er or an school, urge your State Legislators to defeat ERA! If it is ratified, the decision-makin- g pofcer will be in the hands of the Federal Government, HEW, and the U.S.J Supreme Court, and your wishes will be irrelevant! send your child to an all-gir- ls increase of capacity and operational improvement to meet future needs. As to the strategic military and naval requirements for the Canal, recent U.S. Commanders--in-Chief-Pacifhave expressed the view that without this interoceanic link such operations as the Korean and Vietnam Wars simply could not have been effectively conducted. The gravest issue in the Isthmian equation is not between the United States and Panama but between the United States and the Moscow-IIavan- a Axis with Panamanian the which dictatorship is closely allied. areas The are now well on their way toward becoming Red lakes. Upon the fate of the Canal Zone depends that of the Canal. Upon the fate of the Canal depends that of the Gulf entire Caribbean basin and on it depends the survival of the United States us a free and independent ic C.ulf-Caribbe- an all-bo- ys nation. In my view the time has come for a constructive, and economic definite, historically based policy derived from experience. The program for implementing such policy is, in my opinion, simple: 1. Adoption by Congress of resolutions reaffirming and making definite U.S. policy for the- continued undiluted sovereign control over the Canal Zone and Canal; 2. Termination of the current treaty negotiations; 3. Enactment of measures for major modernization of the existing Canal under existing treaty provisions; 4. for the Authorization g a election of delegate in the Congress by U.S. citizens residing in the Canal Zone; 5. Reactivation of the U.S. Navys Special with Service Squadron home base in the Canal Zone. -- Honorable Daniel J. Flood United Staes Congressman (D) - Pennsylvania non-votin- |