OCR Text |
Show ( U.S.S. 1 Senator Jake Garn (R-Utah) Wednesday announced he would lead a filibuster against the proposed extension of the Equal Rights Amendment ratification period "unless states are allowed to rescind and the extension is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. "My intention to filibuster is based on serious procedural, ethical, legal and Constitutional questions which the extension proposal raises - and not on the merits or demerits of the ERA itself," the Utah Republican stressed. "Although I am an opponent of ERA, I believe that objective analysis of the extension proposal shows that it violates the spirit of fair play and threatens to undermine traditional constitutional procedures," he said. Recent polls have indicated that while a majority of Americans favor the ERA, "they have serious concerns about any estension -- particularly if the right to rescind is not granted, ' ' he said. Garn noted that the Senate extension ex-tension proposal - which would grant t an additional seven years for states to ratify the ERA with no right of rescession -- "is like prolonging a basketball game in order to increase the chances of the side that's losing. "What's really unfair is that only the pro-ERA team, in this case, can score," he said. In addition, the extension proposal, sponsored by Sen. Birch Bayh (D-Ind.) (D-Ind.) and others, "ignores a number of legal and Constitutional questions which undoubtedly would lead to years of litigation," Garn said. These include: -Can Congress legally change the length of time for ratification? And, if so, what size majority is necessary? -Does the inclusion of a time limit in a state's ratifying instrument invalidate in-validate that ratification if the time limit has expired? Garn said he has received verbal support from "a number of senators," including the junior senator from Utah, Sen. Orrin Hatch, for mounting a filibuster unless the rescission and two-thirds majority conditions are accepted. "While I personally would prefer to avoid a filibuster, I cannot, in good conscience, allow the Senate to act in a way which will damage the integrity of the constitutional amending process," he said. "If the ratification proposal is not altered to satisfy my concerns and those of many of my colleagues, I believe it is my duty to support those efforts which, under the rules of the Senate, provide for a thorough debate of the many issues surrounding extension." |