Scalia says woman's rights not guaranteed.

Well, I was happier than a clam (as DL said, it's hard to define a clam's joys) before I read the piece and came away with my happiness intact.

I found the author of the article a little biased. And I found myself agreeing, for the most part, with Justice Scalia.

I suppose that the part of the amendment in question was section 1.

It's the "equal protection" part that's debatable. Surely everyone understands that this amendment was to ensure that slaves were now citizens and that the old "3/5's" counting principle abolished (in section 2).

I truly don't see any protection based on gender here. What my reading comprehension is telling me is that this is protecting the equal treatment under the law of all Americans based on their citizenship - not their gender or any other specified characteristic.

I found the author of the piece to be a little miffed at Scalia's response and because he couldn't refute the opinion, he criticized the politics of the man and conservatives in general.

Scalia was right. If certain groups need a special protection from something that is peculiar to their individual group, then that's what the state legislatures are for. For example, I know that many here do not understand when I say that I, to a certain and small degree, embrace feminism. There isn't a man on this planet that I hate, envy, despise, or want to be. I'm happy with being female. I appreciate doors being opened for me. I appreciate gentlemanly behavior. I have people here who don't talk to me anymore because I use "Ms." in front of my name and that's OK - don't sweat it. I don't. But let me give you an example of what I believe is what Scalia is talking about.

Today, all 50 states, to a large extent, have abolished the Marital Rape Exemption laws. That's a good thing. But each individual state had to take those awful laws off of their own books. It didn't start until 1976 and wasn't completely removed from all state laws until a few years ago. 30 years. It took 30 years for all 50 states and the District of Columbia to do this. It would have been nice if we had a one time Constitutional amendment that abolished these laws that exempted sexually abusive husbands from being charged with a criminal act and abolished those laws in one fell swoop instead of 30 years, but if we were to have a Constitutional amendment for every single law that encompasses the law books of every single state, then the Constitution would be the size of a small truck and would be, in my opinion, impotent due to its effectiveness being lost in its sheer enormity and impossibility to understand.

Besides - state laws change fairly regularly. The Constitution, as should be, not so much.

Scalia is right.