About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1999 NOVA Newsl. 1 (1999)

handle is hein.journals/novan1999 and id is 1 raw text is: Volume 18, Number 8 (of 12 Issues), 1999 Senate Judiciary Committee Considers Victims' Amendment for Fourth Time Laurence Tribe Statement On March 24, I 999, the United States Senate dilary Commnittee held its fourth hearing in about as Ail nyars on e adsabllity of amendig the esu Consiuton to protect ittim ights line the issues had already been discued at length, the comunittee leadership chose to have ust three witneses Proponents were Unliver- sitlyo Utah law profesr Paulssell and Steven Twist, former Chief Deputy Attorniey General of Arlionia, ande a cirent NOVA Board Miemnber Op posing the resoution was Beth Wlikinson a fimer federa prisetu- torl Beore the day was out, the com- mnittee had already posted the wit- neses testl(Inyn onl its Web site: http://1udeiiay .enle gov (note the absence of the www Hin the0 address), Readers e inited to obtain the sub- mitted testimnyn there (and NOVA also encourages its mnembers to check in frorn time to time at the Homepage of the National Victiis Constitutional Amnildmlent Ntwoka at wsw nican01g). Repinted here are two state- m1ents subitted for the record that are not on the Committee We sh ite one by Harvardilaw professor Laurence Tribe and the other by Marsha Kight. Director of tunilies and Survivors U nited Both, in part, rebut argu- ments against the proposal / duor 1 noeam woni those invitd to toesril at ihe Senate huiL ir (omnmnte hearngon aproposed iietri/is and- ment a I' aurnIc 11 iie Tler Pro- fes'or If (onitioal Law at Havard Law School. Profes vor The iu wldely i gde a,, tihe, preeinto titutional ind sc<ola in teiu belu raditon of 1ns- tices Louis /Brandlei and Williamn HBrennan Iei followie statement explans his ah some fom /th harng - and the ra sons he supports such 6 a amnnde nu. Readers whoare nustothepoi of legal h larsip may hnd some pas- lages hard going maylil in also find witHn A paiagei of eat eloruernc te I grel that I wa unable [ atcept the invitation t ttestli in person at the hear- ing of March 24, 1999. on the proposed Vit11ms' Rights Constitutional Amend- ment, Other conmmitmlents including a final push to comlplete a quite 11aswive book that constitutes the first of two vol- unles of mly treaise Anmian ('onslt- tional Law (3dI edition, 1999), which I must get to the publisher by early April limit me to maill a brerlllitten state- ment. As luck would have it, part of the volume that I aml nlow completing (sec- tions 1-18 throughl 1-2l) deals with the topic of conlstitutional amlendments - how they dlife from changes in constituionall interpretation; Hwhen chanlges iIn interpre- tation, coupled with new Ilegilton are inherelyi) nsufficient; what processes mlust be followed in amending the Consti- tution; what to make of the suggestions by some scholars that the Constiltution can be informally oaknd utside the param- eters of Article V; how to assess the sug- gestionsof others that ioe properly ti- fied amedmients mia be substantivel unc nstitutional and what criteri should be used in ealuating the newsity and propriety of a proposed amendment Be- cuse m1 expertise is focused pilaily on his kind of illue i seems appropriate to lee to other the dtiiled dicusson of spciic quetions posed h\ the drafting of 111 Victirs' Rilhts Amendment and to concentiate n\ own attentioan on the broader questions of whether this pro- powd amendment addresses a problem that cwnnot be satislactorily resolved by anthling less than a change in the text of the Constitution, and whether this pro- posed amendment is tonsistent with basic ig hts and principles elsewhere protected by the Constitution. Beginning with the premise that the Constittillon should not be amended lightly and hould never be amended to achieve short-term, partisan, or purely policy ob- jecties, I would argue that a constitu- tional amendment is appropriate only when the goal involves (I) a needed change in (See ribe, page 2) b5eir o~,'ih~r~ mrn~t do no~' gsor~ to reprod~ e copyrwhted miwteri~

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most