This 3 page paper examines the proposed Amendment and compares it with Constitutional guarantees. Pros and cons of the proposal are duly noted. Bibliography lists 3 sources.
Name of Research Paper File: RT13_SA516VRA.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
on, there were amendments to this important document because of horrific injustices. When the slaves were freed, when women were given equal status and so forth, the rules had to
change. The Constitution allowed for the mistreatment of people, to an extent. As the world became more enlightened, certain things were no longer palatable. Amendments would create a situation where
things were corrected. As the twenty-first century unfolds, there is a new amendment proposal, which is that victims of crime should be given more rights. It is a fairly simple
thing. In fact, it is hard to believe that anyone would object to something that would give victims rights. It is an idea that is grounded in decency and empathy.
At the same time, when proposing a Constitutional amendment to take care of something, one is making a giant leap. An Act can help to ameliorated problems, but a Constitutional
amendment is serious business. It alters things and gives a great deal of power to any issue. For example, the First Amendment has given the likes of Larry Flynt to
publish whatever he likes and the Fourth Amendment has seen many solid arrests go out the window. If in fact a search is deemed illegal by the court--even if it
has to do with a technicality--the case is not supported. There is in fact a lot of position to the proposal
and it comes from different ideological camps ("Criminal," 2005). Conservatives as well as card carrying ACLU members are each opposed (2005). Why does it bother both sides of the political
spectrum? At the ACLU site, it is explained that one reason why the amendment would be problematic has to do with the fact that due process protections are designed only