Gore's "victims rights" amendment

[Sanford Levinson]

Bryan Wildenthal writes:

I am flatly opposed to any tampering or amendment of any of the Bill of
Rights,
>in the name of "victims" or anything else.  ....  [Gore's amendment] would
legitimize and open the door to a flood of other proposals
>tampering with the Bill of Rights (we might look back fondly to the little
>ole flag-burning amendment).
>

I think there are a number of good reasons to oppose the amendment (subject
to the caveat that, like Bryan, I don't know its specifics), but I don't
believe the fact that it "tampers" with the Bill of Rights is one of them.
Isn't it possible that even the Bill of Rights might contain (at least) one
"stupidity" that merits change?  I suspect that many of you on this list
(by saying "you" I'm indicating my own uncertainty) would support repealing
the Second Amendment as just such a stupidity (unless, as a matter of
constitutional interpretation, you sufficiently "neutralize it" to make it
irrelevant).  Or what about those who propose overruling Buckley by an
amendment?  If one believes that Buckley is an incredibly stupid decision
that has disserved the country and given us the present corruption of our
electoral system, should one refrain from calling for an overruling
amendment because it tampers with the First Amendment?  (Is the difference
that most opponents of Buckley believe the Court was wrong in its view of
the Amendment, so that it's not the First Amendment that's being tampered
with, but, rather, the Court's mistaken interpretation?  But what if one,
albeit regretfully, believes that the Court in fact got it right, or that
it's mistake was only in upholding any of the 1974 Amendments rather than
striking some of them down.  (At the time, at least, I would have joined
Burger and Rehnquist in striking down every sentence of the legislation,
though I've become more confused as to what kind of control of election
finance I think is desirable and/or is constitutional.)

Bryan's statement is only a more specific version of Kathleen Sullivan's
argument that we really ought not support *any* amendments at all, that we
are better off, all things considered, continuing to be cheerleaders for
the Constitution we have rather than countenancing the suggestion that
there are significant deficiencies that might merit amendment.  Again, one
might ask if Dean Sullivan's argument is "legal" or "political."

Sandy