1 The argument that this amendment will not solve the problem of sex discrimination is not relevant. If the argument were used against a civil rights bill-as it has been used in the past-the prejudice that lies behind it would be embarrassing. Of course laws will not eliminate prejudice from the hearts of human beings. But that is no reason to allow prejudice to continue to be enshrined in our laws-to perpetuate injustice through inaction.
2 The amendment is necessary to clarify countless ambiguities and inconsistencies in our legal system. For instance, the Constitution guarantees due process of law, in the fifth and 14th amendments. But the applicability of due process to sex distinctions is not clear. Women are excluded from some State colleges and universities. In some States, restrictions are placed on a married woman who engages in an independent business. Women may not be chosen for some juries. Women even receive heavier criminal penalties than
3
men who commit the same crime. What would the legal effects of the equal rights amendment really be? The equal rights amendment would govern only the relationship between the State and its citizens-not relationships between private citizens.
Choose two claims that Chisholm makes in the passage.
1. The amendment may not affect people's attitudes but would help women legally.
2. The amendment would primarily help fight discrimination that married women face.
3. It is far better to take action for justice despite people's prejudices than to do nothing
4. The Constitution allows for the discrimination against women in schools and universities.
5. The amendment would not be very effective because it exists only between State and citizen.
Bot GPT 3.5
answered3. It is far better to take action for justice despite people's prejudices than to do nothing
