Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) have drafted a constitutional amendment that creates new rights for victims or their survivors to attend trials, be informed, and testify at key junctures of case processing. In this article they argue that the purpose of adding victims' rights to the U.S. Constitution is not to dilute defendants' rights, but rather to give victims basic rights to be present and provide appropriate input at decisionmaking forums that bear upon their cases. They reason that a constitutional amendment is needed because victims currently have no rights in the judicial process; victims' rights should be equal in weight to those of the accused without diminishing the rights of the accused. Larry Yackle, a constitutional law scholar at Boston University's law school, presents his belief that a victims' rights amendment would be a serious mistake. His concerns are in four general categories. First, a constitutional amendment would impose heavy administrative burdens on Federal, State, and local police, as well as on prosecutors, courts, and corrections officials, and it would hamper effective law enforcement. Second, since none of the proposals specifies how victims should enforce their rights, civil suits would surely stem from the implementation of the amendment. Third, a victims' rights amendment would constitute an extraordinary extension of Federal authority into a preserve long left to State and local governments. Finally, such an amendment would pose a serious threat to existing constitutional standards in criminal cases.