Amend constitution ‘for the children’? |

Amend constitution ‘for the children’?

In November, we will be voting whether to change the Pennsylvania Constitution “for the children.”

Every time I see the government proposing something “for the children” I get nervous. The constitutional amendment, if approved, will remove the words “face to face” in describing the rights of defendants in court to confront the witnesses against them.

We are assured the “replacing words” really mean the same thing as the original words; however, it would now be possible for children to give closed-circuit testimony in the courts. If that is the case, surely some meaning will have been changed in the constitution.

Attorneys opposed to the change state that the door could possibly be opened to exceptions for other kinds of witnesses — old people, the handicapped, and who knows who else. If one is brought into court, perhaps unfairly, by overzealous policemen, by someone claiming sexual harassment, by an EPA official who won’t let someone cut down a tree, will the new rules apply?

Why did the writers of the Pennsylvania Constitution feel it so very important to have the words “face to face” as part of the constitution instead of making it a law that could be easily amended or changed• Perhaps we need to do more research before we do something so important as to change our Pennsylvania Constitution.

Changing the constitution is serious business. I suggest we all vote “no” and find another way “for the children.”

LaVerne Sober
Hempfield Township

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.