OCR Text |
Show Guest Editorial ERA extension not wise course to take It is clear that both foes and many supporters of the Equal Rights amendment feel it would not be wise to extend the time for ratification of the controversial measure from its original seven-year seven-year period. For the sake of order and consistency, con-sistency, as a matter of precedence and legal clarity, if the ERA is not ratified by the required number of states when its time expires in March 1979, then the current effort should die. Senator Jake Garn points out that Jules B. Gerard, Washington university law professor, has conducted a study on the subject and has concluded that ERA extension ex-tension is likely to invalidate the ratifications of at least 24 states. In his study, Professor Gerard notes that "everyone assumed that states had ratified only the proposed amendment, not the time limit under which it was submitted, sub-mitted, and further that the time limit had played no major role in the ratifications decisions. "Both of these asusmptions are demonstrably incorrect." Gerard explains that any fair reading of the 24 states' ratification documents "will lead one inevitably to the conclusion that the time limit was a material consideration to all of these states and that it is impermissable to presume that they would have ratified without it." Senator Garn who is an ERA opponent, suggests that supporters can continue to work for its adoption until the March 22 deadline. "If they fail, they could certainly begin the entire process again and try to gain the necessary support of the Congress and states." This makes sense and does not deny ERA proponents the opportunity op-portunity of continuing to pursue their cause. Extension of the current consideration, con-sideration, on the other hand, leaves too many legal questions ..unanswered, uncertainties that could create an entanglement that nobody wants. |