Chuck Schumer: “There is no ``but'' about my respect for the Senator. However, there is a ``but'' about Professor Tribe's remarks in the…”

“There is no ``but'' about my respect for the Senator. However, there is a ``but'' about Professor Tribe's remarks in the whole. What bothers me most about this amendment--and I have expressed this to the Senator--is as follows. Of the five criteria Professor Tribe lays out, I think I would agree with four of them. I think that amendments should not be done lightly. But I think there are times when we have to amend the Constitution, although reluctantly. I certainly believe the rights of victims are extremely important. As the Senator knows, we worked on the crime bill of 1994 together. I worked diligently in the House to add the right of allocution and other things to the bill. I understand why the statute didn't work in Oklahoma City although I would like to debate another point. But Professor Tribe, I think, goes off base when he says a statute would not take care of this problem. So I have a two-part question. First, why is it not better, if this particular statute does not work, to redesign it? Why is it not better to take the basic amendment that the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from California have offered and make it a statute, given the fact that we have not had a single State supreme court--in some States, such as mine, they are not called a supreme court--but the highest court of any of the 50 States throw out a victims' rights amendment on the basis of unconstitutionality.”