ACLU Urges Congress Not to Favor Diminishing Civil Rights

WASHINGTON D.C., May 10 (IslamOnline) – The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asserted Thursday that the U.S. Constitution “should never be modified to diminish individual rights.”

The civil liberties giant has urged the U.S. Congress to reject the "Victim's Rights Amendment," which the ACLU says is “disingenuously named” and “misguided.”

"Nothing has changed since this amendment first came up for consideration - it still doesn't do anything that can't be achieved through statute," said Rachel King, an ACLU Legislative Counsel, in a statement released by the group Thursday.

"Modifying the Constitution in any way - especially if the changes will diminish rights in this country - would be an extremely dangerous move."

The so-called Victims' Rights Amendment was the subject of a hearing in the Constitution Subcommittee, chaired by Representative Steve Chabot (R-OH), of the House Judiciary Committee.

A Republican-controlled Senate rejected the amendment in 2000 after a strong backlash from conservatives, including George Will and several victims and victims' rights groups. Opposition centered around the amendment's potential to greatly diminish due process protections in America, as well as fears over the enormity of amending the Constitution in a manner that would shrink the rights and freedoms accorded to all Americans, the ACLU went on to state.

Critics of the measure have also questioned its supporters' insistence that it take the form of a constitutional amendment; prominent legal figures in Washington and across the country have pointed out that many of the amendment's provisions can be implemented by statute. Not since Prohibition has the Constitution been changed in any way that would diminish civil liberty in America, according to the ACLU.

The ACLU said it has three main concerns with the proposed constitutional amendment:

· Victim's rights are already well protected both in the Constitution and state laws; what is the point of amending the founding documents?

· The proposed amendment is too specific; the Constitution and Bill of Rights were meant to codify broad principles of freedom in America like "freedom of speech" or "freedom of assembly." Specific prohibitions on freedom are meant to be dealt with in the law books.

· There is a good possibility that, were this to become part of the Constitution, victim's rights would actually be diminished as the amendment's unnecessary mandates on police and attorneys begin to hamper effective law enforcement and legal proceedings.

The ACLU's also issued a letter to the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee, stating that it opposed H.J. Res. 91 and asserted its concern for any measures that would be taken towards denying persons their right to due process as protected by the U.S. Constitution.

“Although worded differently, H.J. Res. 91 poses the same problems that amendments from previous Congresses have posed, most recently S.J. Res. 3 and H.J. Res. 64 in the 106th Congress.  This amendment would fundamentally alter the nation's founding charter and would apply to every federal, state and local criminal case, profoundly compromising Bill of Rights’ protections for accused persons.

“H.J. Res. 91 would give rights to victims of violent crime such as:  the right to notice of any public proceeding; the right not to be excluded from public proceedings; the right to be heard at release, plea, sentencing, pardon and reprieve hearings; an interest in avoiding unreasonable delay; and just and timely restitution.  The Amendment also provides victims with the right to ‘adjudicative decisions’ regarding victim’s safety, speedy trial and restitution.  Although ‘adjudicative decisions’ is not defined in the bill, this phrase could be interpreted as providing victims with the right to a hearing.  

“Every state has either a state constitutional amendment or statute protecting victims’ rights and the proponents have not made the case that those measures fail to protect victims’ interests.  More importantly, providing these ‘rights’ to victims will compromise the rights of the accused,” the letter went on to state.  

“Not every person accused is actually guilty,” the ACLU asserted.

The ACLU and other civil rights organizations have specifically vocalized concerns for Muslims and Arabs in the United States whose civil right to due process have been severely compromised both before and after September 11 – including the use of secret evidence to detain Muslims and Arabs like Mazen Al Najjar and dozens of others.

The ACLU also emphasized that the proposed amendment does not protect the rights of accused persons.  

“Although the words of this amendment are different from previous versions of the Amendment introduced in earlier Congresses, the effect is the same.   If passed, the Amendment would erode the presumption of innocence, erode the right to a fair trial, hamper the ability of law enforcement to effectively prosecute cases, discriminate between victims and impose legal liability on the states.  

“One of the primary concerns that opponents of the Amendment have raised is that it will erode the rights of accused persons.  The victims’ rights amendments of eight states expressly provide that nothing in the amendment may diminish the rights of the accused.  Proposed H.J. Res. 91 does not, but oddly suggests that the rights of victims are ‘capable of protection without denying the constitutional rights of those accused of victimizing them.’  This clause constitutes more of an observation than a prohibition; nothing in its purports to prohibit any diminution of other rights, which have long existed under the Constitution.  It would be the first time in our nation’s history that the Constitution was amended in a manner that restricted rights of the accused,” the letter continued.  

The group also went on to caution against amending the U.S. Constitution and that such actions should only be taken when “there are no other alternatives available.”  

Since 1791, the Federal Constitution has been amended only 19 times.

The group claimed that the amendment would likely further limit defendants’ access to counsel as well as pose a major conflict of interest.   “If this happens, it will tax an already severely overtaxed system, make it less likely for accused persons to retain adequate counsel, and therefore, increase the likelihood of wrongful conviction,” it stated.

It also went on to state that the amendment “poses more problems than solutions.”

The group’s letter to the Congressional Representatives ended with a reiteration of concerns regarding amendments to the Constitution and a plea for the congressional subcommittee to reject the resolution calling for the amendment.

“A constitutional amendment is not the solution.  Crime victims deserve protection, but a victims’ rights constitutional amendment is not the way to do it.  H.J. Res. 91 unnecessarily amends the federal constitution, places inflexible mandates on states, may hinder prosecution of criminal cases and threatens the rights of the accused.  We urge you to oppose this amendment.”

Jennin: World testimonies Israeli Operation Defensive Sheild Palest ine: Maps and Facts Castro Denies U.S. Charges Ahead Of Carter’s Visit To Cuba, N. Korea Issues Warning “They Deprived Themselves To Help Us” A Jewish Organization Plans Attacks Against Palestinians U.S. To Send Envoy To India, Pakistan Palestinians: Burning Our Homes Will Not Weaken Us Exiled Palestinians Fate Still Unclear Palestinian Children Denounce Israeli Occupation, UN Adopts Action Plan  Trial Of Suspects In Pearl Murder Case Adjourned After FBI Gives Evidence Amid Mixed Signals, Military Build-Up, Israel Delays Gaza Sweep Stop Killing Our Civilians First: Yassin To Israel Mubarak To Arab Oil Ministers: Don’t Use Oil As Political Weapon Likud Discusses Proposal to Ban a Palestinian State Israel Reserves Extradition Rights, Gaza Exiles Beaten HRW Lauds Israel’s Agreement To Prohibit Use of “Human Shields”: Report Nativity Drama Over, Israeli Military Operations Continue U.S. Political Appointee Resigns Over ‘Crusader’  U.S. Constitution “Should Never be Modified to Diminish Individual Rights”: ACLU Jenin – Israel’s Latest War Crime After Killing More Jenin Civilians, Israeli Army ‘Sorry’ U.S.: Jenin Unanswered, Let’s Stress Humanitarian Aid Israel Has ‘Other’ Reasons Not To Cooperate With Jenin Mission, Ahtisaari U.S. Eyewitnesses Narrate Two Weeks In Ramallah, Jenin Jenin War Crimes Investigation Needed: Human Rights Watch Report Amnesty Finds Evidence Confirming Atrocities in Jenin & Elsewhere Faced With Israeli Refusal, Annan Mulls Disbanding Jenin Fact-finding Team Arab American Leaders Meet with Annan To Discuss U.N. Mission To Jenin Yesterday's News Search Articles      News Archive : Day: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31     Month: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12   Year: 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999