Jon Kyl: “That is the second point. We are criticized on two accounts. We literally can't win. On one hand, the Senator from New…”

“That is the second point. We are criticized on two accounts. We literally can't win. On one hand, the Senator from New York and others have said it is subject to interpretation. What does ``reasonable'' mean? On the other hand, we have written too much. We ought to just say ``reasonable rights'' and then flesh it out in statute. We can't win, if that is the argument. What we have done, I submit, is the compromise that the Founding Fathers did. They expressed general terminology in order to keep it short and succinct, understanding that it would have to be fleshed out. But what we have done is to describe in enough additional detail to ensure that there could never be a contention that we are infringing on a defendant's rights and to be sure there would never be a criticism that we weren't specific enough about what these rights were. So we have actually enumerated these eight specific rights. But I think we have struck the right compromise in that regard. Two other quick points, if I may: The Senator correctly pointed out that it appears one of the reasons for the judge's decision in the Oklahoma City bombing case was that he just ignored it. I think it is hard to figure out exactly why he didn't apply it. He couldn't ignore a U.S. constitutional provision as he could ignore a Federal statute, which is precisely why we need a Federal constitutional amendment. It may also be that the Oklahoma City statute was not well enough drafted. I think that is exactly correct as well.”