Phyllis Schlafly

It looks like all sorts of people are participating in the game of rewriting parts of the U.S. Constitution. It started with state legislators, who apparently had time on their hands, and now even Supreme Court justices have joined.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a joint appearance at the National Press Club and added their two bits worth of advice about changing our Constitution. Scalia said he would like an amendment that would make it easier to pass more amendments, which probably is music to the ears of those who are trying to pass several or even a dozen new amendments. Currently, it's considered a laborious process even to get a constitutional amendment introduced, much less passed and ratified.

However, Scalia added a caveat to his suggestion, saying: "I certainly would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?"

As Hamlet bemoaned, "Aye, there's the rub." Any new constitutional convention, called as allowed by Article 5, would surely attract and include political activists with motives and goals diametrically different from those of Scalia.

Ginsburg then weighed in with the tiresome complaint of the feminists. Her first choice for a constitutional change, she said, would be the addition of the Equal Rights Amendment.

The American people, mainstream media and state legislators spent 10 years (1972 to 1982) considering the proposed Equal Rights Amendment. They then let it die after it failed to get three-fourths (38) of the states that are needed to ratify a new amendment.

The ERA was marketed as something that would give new rights (with the false promise of a pay raise) to American women (whom the feminists falsely claim are oppressed by the patriarchy). But that phony sales talk failed. Since the text of ERA doesn't use the words "women" or "gender," but instead calls for "equality of rights ... on account of sex," it is now beyond dispute that the ERA's principal effect would be to make it unconstitutional to deny a marriage license "on account of sex."

Our biggest trouble about constitutional revisionism comes from 93-year-old Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who just emerged from retirement to try to make himself relevant again. He has just written a new book calling for six amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Stevens' most dangerous suggestion is to gut the Second Amendment. Stevens wants to reverse the Supreme Court decision that upheld our right to keep a gun at home for self-protection.

Phyllis Schlafly

Phyllis Schlafly is a national leader of the pro-family movement, a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Feminist Fantasies.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Phyllis Schlafly‘s column. Sign up today and receive daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.