Dianne Feinstein: “The point made by the Oklahoma City case is that these were not indigent victims. They had Washington counsel…”

“The point made by the Oklahoma City case is that these were not indigent victims. They had Washington counsel, distinguished counsel of very high quality. They tried to assert the rights under the statute, and the court essentially turned them down. This isn't what we think; this is what happens. I will quote a bit more from Professor Tribe on this very subject, until Senator Byrd, who is next, comes to the Chamber. Larry Tribe makes this statement: Beginning with the premise that the Constitution should not be amended lightly and should never be amended to achieve short-term partisan or purely policy objectives, I would argue that a constitutional amendment is appropriate only when the goal involves (1) a needed change in government structure, or (2) a needed recognition of a basic human right, where (a) the right is one that people widely agree deserves serious and permanent respect, (b) the right is one that is insufficiently protected under existing law, (c) the right is one that cannot be adequately protected through purely political action such as state or federal legislation and/or regulation, (d) the right is one whose inclusion in the United States Constitution would not distort or endanger basic principles of the separation of powers among the federal branches . . . (e) the right would be judicially enforceable without creating open-ended or otherwise unacceptable funding obligations. Professor Tribe goes on to say: I believe that S.J. Res. 3 meets these criteria.…”