Chris Dodd: “I intend to oppose the cloture motion and oppose the underlying constitutional amendment, and I will lay out the reasons…”

“I intend to oppose the cloture motion and oppose the underlying constitutional amendment, and I will lay out the reasons why. First, I believe this constitutional amendment has no place in our founding document because it runs counter to our most sacred constitutional traditions. According to University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein, who testified before the Judiciary Committee: Our constitutional traditions demonstrate that change in the founding document is appropriate on only the most rare occasions--most notably, to correct problems in governmental structure or to expand the category of individual rights. The proposed amendment does not fall into either of these categories. For example, the first 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights guaranteed such liberties as freedom of speech, assembly, and religion, the protection of private property, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Other amendments corrected problems in the structure of Government such as limiting the number of terms a President could serve or providing for the direct election of Senators. In fact, the only time the Federal Constitution was amended not to expand an individual right or to respond to structural concerns was to establish prohibition and then repeal it.”