onenote
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon May-22-06 03:40 PM
Original message |
"national" language amendment-- Constitutional end run? |
|
As far as I can tell, this is relevant language from the amendment to the Immigration bill that would establish English as the "national" language: "The Government of the United States shall preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language of the United States of America. Unless specifically stated in applicable law, no person has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the United States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, perform or provide services, or provide materials in any language other than English. If exceptions are made, that does not create a legal entitlement to additional services in that language or any language other than English. If any forms are issued by the Federal Government in a language other than English (or such forms are completed in a language other than English), the English language version of the form is the sole authority for all legal purposes.''.
On its face, I don't see that this would prevent a community from offering bi-lingual services. Rather, what it seems to be trying to accomplish is to negate any claim to a "right" to bilingual services. Yet, isn't that really something turns on whether the Constitution is interpreted as requiring that certain services be provided in a language other than English -- for example, it might be argued that it was a denial of Due Process not to provide someone with certain information in a language that they can understand, or that certain other rights and impinged upon absent the provision of information in another language. While I don't necessarily think that there is an automatic right to bilingual services, I also can't rule out the possibility that, in appropriate circumstances, failure to provide non-English information could be inconsistent with the Constitition. So isn't the national language amendment just an attempt to end-run the Constitution?
|
FreakinDJ
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon May-22-06 03:42 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Doesn't restrict Bi-lingual services |
|
Thats just it. It doesn't restrict any thing.
|
demigoddess
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon May-22-06 03:44 PM
Response to Original message |
2. yes, but my thought is that they want to limit the right to ballots in |
|
other languages, as well. You know, keep the 'wrong types' from voting.
|
Igel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon May-22-06 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
14. First you have to find a ballot issued by the federal government. n/t |
central scrutinizer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon May-22-06 03:54 PM
Response to Original message |
3. it's all about distraction |
|
Pay attention to:
English only prayer in the schools flag burning gay marriage
Do not pay attention to:
outsourcing illegal war based on lies no-bid contracts incompetence cooked intelligence NSA spying illegal wiretaps etc., etc.
|
LSparkle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon May-22-06 03:59 PM
Response to Original message |
4. This is the biggest piece of crap ... does absolutely NOTHING |
|
It's all a distraction; from what I've heard, it won't affect ballots being printed in other languages, commerce being conducted in other languages, etc. This is just another fig leaf for the Thugs to point to in the midterms, especially if they're perceived as being "soft" on immigration.
|
Metta
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon May-22-06 04:09 PM
Response to Original message |
5. A slap in the face to all and a real act of hostility to non Eng spkrs. |
|
That's what I have to say about it. They're blatantly unconcerned for collateral damage when it supports their cause and not when it doesn't. What is this, a hobby for them?
|
ContraBass Black
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon May-22-06 04:11 PM
Response to Original message |
6. It means that criminal convictions against people who don't |
|
speak English and were denied a translator can no longer be overturned.
|
FreakinDJ
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon May-22-06 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
It specifically listed a clause to protect translators during court proceedings,
|
ContraBass Black
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon May-22-06 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
Fire Walk With Me
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon May-22-06 04:13 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Give them an inch and the next item will be more specific. |
|
Especially if it is to end or limit terror and unrest.
|
mwooldri
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon May-22-06 04:21 PM
Response to Original message |
8. What about the other sovereign nations within the USA... |
|
... the ones we've confined to "reservations" ???
What is the legal situation re indiginous people vs the occupiers?
Mark.
|
treestar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon May-22-06 04:27 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Since anyone could bring/use an interpreter, this amendment doesn't |
|
mean anything. It is just posturing and a waste of time - especially when we are "at war."
:hippie:
|
sweetheart
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon May-22-06 05:07 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Give all the English the power to define your dictionary and come and worship at Cambridge and Oxford to find out the latest nuances.
Marry the royal familes, let the two princes marry the two bush daughters and create a unity cretinous decadent line of imperial kings and queens to preside over the prison state.
The neo-englishman's burden indeed...
|
Acadia Blue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon May-22-06 05:57 PM
Response to Original message |
13. Window dressing by the corporatists who want to make all Americans |
|
as poor as the majority of Mexicans. Our Senators and Representatives are padding their own pockets because they know they will stay on top of the income pile while we fall.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu May 09th 2024, 04:22 AM
Response to Original message |