rkj@ihtnt.UUCP (10/04/83)
Contrary to Scott Preece's note: the Supreme Court did NOT back Morton Grove's anti-handgun law; the Court simply chose not to rule on the case. There is a difference between considering and upholding a law, and with letting a law stand by refusing to consider it. True, the net result is the same, but the latter seems like a sad cop-out to me. Also, contrary to Scott's opinion, I do not see how the Court's refusal to rule on the law can make clear to doubters what the Bill of Rights does and does not permit. It merely makes me wonder why the Court has decided to ignore an obviously important issue. I find it amusing that different courts continually discover what the Constitution "really" means. This often displayed refusal by the Supreme Court to consider significant issues is one reason why I must oppose THE Equal Rights Amendment. I am in favor of AN Equal Rights Amendment, but I find the wording in the proposed, and defeated amendment, too vague and open to who knows what kind of interpretations by the courts. That a better ERA could be written that would extend the basic rights to women that have been extended to blacks, etc., and at the same time not give the courts an open ticket to per- mitting all sorts of possible unintended effects seems to be a point that few have expressed. Rick Janka ..ihnp4!ihtnt!rkj