- #36
hitssquad
- 927
- 0
According to which part of the constitution?loseyourname said:If this law actually does restrict the printing of ballots to one language, it will be found unconstitutional
According to which part of the constitution?loseyourname said:If this law actually does restrict the printing of ballots to one language, it will be found unconstitutional
I thought so, but the only information I can find now is that this kind of communciation is usually considered confidential. So I may have been wrong.loseyourname said:What are you concerned about with this 'representative' thing? That you'll write a letter to your senator in Swahili and he will no longer employ a translator? Are letters from constituents actually considered "official" business?
No, I'm not sure - I asked about this and no one replied - that's why I said 'might'.Also, are you sure this applies to ballots? It says above that it refers to the District of Columbia and all the states. Ballots are published by county governments - are they subject to this as well? If anything, this bill doesn't seem to give enough clarification.
But shouldn't that be considered before it becomes law? I don't think it's acceptable for Congress to just pass laws indiscriminately and let the courts decide whether the laws are actually allowed - and try to fix what harm is done in the meantime.Edit: If this law actually does restrict the printing of ballots to one language, it will be found unconstitutional and stricken from the books. There really isn't anything to worry about there.
No, there is always choice. You can have all the languages you want, it means English must be one of them. When's the last time you heard of Congress holding it's sessions in another language other than English anyway? Or the last time you saw a Supreme Court opinion written in Spanish or French? Or even a Presidential debate conducted in a language other than English? Official functions are already all done in English in the U.S. The law does not state that a translation can't be provided if someone wants to provide it.honestrosewater said:No choice - English only.
Have you been to Canada recently? They have two official languages, French and English. I don't see them having any problems with that.Sure, any representative can explain in any language that all official business must be done in English.
The good part. If you're asking because you're truly interested, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse.html is a great resource. There's even a list of http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/acts.html (with explanations).hitssquad said:According to which part of the constitution?
So I'm guessing either the Civil Rights Act or the Fifteenth, Fourteenth, or Fifth Amendment. Whoever is responsible for the ballots must fall under one of these.? Though the Fifth Amendment has no equal protection clause, SCOTUS decided in Bolling v. Sharpe that the federal government cannot hold itself to a lower standard than it holds the states:The failure of the San Francisco school system to provide English language instruction to approximately 1,800 students of Chinese ancestry who do not speak English, or to provide them with other adequate instructional procedures, denies them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the public educational program and thus violates 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination based "on the ground of race, color, or national origin," in "any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance," and the implementing regulations of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Pp. 565-569
...
We do not reach the Equal Protection Clause argument which has been advanced but rely solely on 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, to reverse the Court of Appeals.
- http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=414&invol=563
(a) Though the Fifth Amendment does not contain an equal protection clause, as does the Fourteenth Amendment which applies only to the States, the concepts of equal protection and due process are not mutually exclusive. P. 499.
(b) Discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process. P. 499.
...
(d) In view of this Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, ante, p. 483, that the Constitution prohibits the States from maintaining racially segregated public schools, it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government.
- http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=347&invol=497
Geez, I really wasn't thinking clearly last night. Talking about rights tends to upset me, maybe even make me a bit paranoid. I'm sorry. You're right, it doesn't say English only. The other laws were referred to as English-only, and I guess I just grouped them all together. However, it still isn't clear whether they intended your interpretation or the English only one.Moonbear said:No, there is always choice.
So what is the point of adopting the law? Adopting laws just for the heck of it is at worst wasteful and at best senseless. Why do we need this law?You can have all the languages you want, it means English must be one of them. When's the last time you heard of Congress holding it's sessions in another language other than English anyway? Or the last time you saw a Supreme Court opinion written in Spanish or French? Or even a Presidential debate conducted in a language other than English? Official functions are already all done in English in the U.S. The law does not state that a translation can't be provided if someone wants to provide it.
I've never been outside of the US. Are their laws the same though? Some official language laws are merely symbolic.Have you been to Canada recently? They have two official languages, French and English. I don't see them having any problems with that.
I couldn't find a law specifically about languages in general, presumably because there's been no reason for such a law (since most business is already conducted in English), but there are laws regarding meaningful access for 'limited English proficient' (LEP) individuals:Actually, without an official language, I suppose if Congress decided to write up legislation in ancient sanskrit, they'd be free to do so, and nothing would require they translate it into any modern language if they didn't feel like it.
Q. What are the relevant laws concerning language access for LEP individuals?
A. Federal laws particularly applicable to language access include Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Title VI regulations, prohibiting discrimination based on national origin, and Executive Order 13166 issued in 2000. Many individual federal programs, states, and localities also have provisions requiring language services for LEP individuals.
Q. What is Executive Order 13166?
A. An Executive Order is an order given by the President to federal agencies. The LEP Executive Order (Executive Order 13166) says that people who are LEP should have meaningful access to federally conducted and federally funded programs and activities.
- http://www.lep.gov/faq.html
The United States Supreme Court in Lau v. Nichols (1974) stated that one type of national origin discrimination is discrimination based on a person’s inability to speak, read, write, or understand English.
- http://www.fec.gov/pages/lepaccessplan.html
HA! You must not be looking hard enoughMoonbear said:Have you been to Canada recently? They have two official languages, French and English. I don't see them having any problems with that.
Tell him to hang an English sign outside of a business in Quebec and see what happens.Smurf said:HA! You must not be looking hard enough
The Smoking Man said:Tell him to hang an English sign outside of a business in Quebec and see what happens.
Are you joking, or is that true? A private business?iansmith said:You are allowed to have an english sign but it has to have french on it.
How is havng an official language going to accomplish this?Curious6 said:The reality is that the United States necessitates a law which proclaims English as its official language in order to preserve cultural unity and facilitate the assimilation of the substantial wave of Hispanic immigrants that have reached the country since the 1960's.
Suppression of undesirable traits is one of the properties of assimilation. The other property is enhancement of desirable traits.honestrosewater said:What is the difference between assimilation and suppression?
No, I mean it's not completely without problems.misskitty said:Smurf, does Canada have more than 2 official languages? Is that what you were getting at with "you must not be looking hard enough"?
Completely true, in Quebec.honestrosewater said:Are you joking, or is that true? A private business?
One is borg-ish the other is hitler-ish.What is the difference between assimilation and suppression?
hitssquad said:Suppression of undesirable traits is one of the properties of assimilation. The other property is enhancement of desirable traits.
hitssquad said:According to which part of the constitution?
Yeah ... Sure you are ... Ask about if that business happens to be a flower shop that has been there for a hundred years.iansmith said:Canada has only two official language but each province have their own status. What it means is that any the federal government has to communicate in english or french. Also, all labeling goods are bilingual. This also allow people speaking french or english as their first languague to have education in their first language.
Province have different statues, Quebec is french only province, New-brunswick is billingual and the rest is english only. Most official provincial will have bilingual service but it always depends on the person serving you.
You are allowed to have an english sign but it has to have french on it.
The Smoking Man said:Yeah ... Sure you are ... Ask about if that business happens to be a flower shop that has been there for a hundred years.
That place had the wondows blown out with a shotgun.
The Smoking Man said:You also get stupid things like the guy in Alberta who seemed to have absolutely NO problem surviving in a community there for most of his life in English. Then ... When he was done for tax evasion ... elected to have his trial for tax evasion in French only meaning they had to move a complete French courtroom to his town at a cost of $2 million so the government could recover $100,000.
The Smoking Man said:Then there is the stated preference for government employees who are bilingual. Well it appears that all French is not the same because of two people who are bilingual going for the same job the French person who learned English will get the job and not the English who acquired French.
Why? --- The schools of Canada teach Parisian French and not Quebecoise.
Most of the people who were brought up in Canada don't speak Parisian French.
Therefore, the native Quebecoise speaker gets the job because they are more qualified.
The observation was that 'there was no trouble in Canada based on having two languages'.iansmith said:That is the work of extremist and terrorrist. By law you are allows to have any languague on sign as long as french is dominant.
So you agree that the government was correct in spending $2 million to recover $100 thousand in back taxes?iansmith said:You do seem to understand that some people can function in a second language, yet they do not master this language. This put them at a disadvantage when sign contract or are in court because native speaker have a certain understanding of the fine details of the language
This man lived in a community that had 7 french speakers. He and his wife and 5 children who did not qualify as great enough of a population to create a French School. His children were educated in English, he signed contracts in English, he had an English lawyer, he purchased his land in English and he banks in English.iansmith said:Also some people will leave in very closed communities where french is major languague but are surronded by english majority. Or vice-versa. I seen people from the west-island of montreal that lived there for more than 60 years but could not speak a word of french. Yet they are surrounded by french speaking people.
Well, thanks for that. Next time I consider employment with the Canadian government, I'll remember that I have to moved to Quebec for 10 years and acquire my language skills.iansmith said:The problem here is that you should not rely on the school system to teach you another language. The english thaught in Quebec is as bad as the french taught in other province. The difference is that people in Quebec go outside the province to learn english. You also have to expose yourself to the language and pratice it to maintain a certain level of expertise. A language can be lost quite rapidly if you do not speak it on a regular basis.
Nothing in the United States Constitution grants any citizen the right to vote.loseyourname said:the articles and amendments pertaining to who is allowed to vote, which at this point is any citizen above the age of 18 who is not a felon.
In my experience it's viewed more with apathetic humour than any hostile feelings.The Smoking Man said:even the real French have no respect for since it is considered an abomination and affront to the national language of France.
Something funny here you ... you ... ANGLOFONE!?Smurf said:excuse me while I burst into hysterical laughter briefly
Understandable ... the Brit would just as soon shoot at them.Smurf said:In my experience it's viewed more with apathetic humour than any hostile feelings.
hehe, they'd still rather talk to a quebecy than a brit.
Two African swallows and a bit of string.Smurf said:Are you suggesting coconuts MIGRATE?
We don't have a king. We're an autonomous collective as part of an anarcho-syndicalist commune. (my favorite part)The Smoking Man said:Two African swallows and a bit of string.
You can spell in French!?Smurf said:I think poutine is spelled with a 'u'
Curious6 said:The reality is that the United States necessitates a law which proclaims English as its official language in order to preserve cultural unity and facilitate the assimilation of the substantial wave of Hispanic immigrants that have reached the country since the 1960's.
*holds up french citizenship card* You think they just give these out to anyone?The Smoking Man said:You can spell in French!?
So what do you think they will do with Louisiana if they push this through?Ivan Seeking said:In addition to growing up with Mexicans, a Mexican girl and I dated and got quite serious for a time. Many Mexican immigrants resent those who refuse to assimilate into this culture. They see the need to assimilate and the problems caused when people don't learn the language.
... ... SO? What are the amish going to do?!The Smoking Man said:The Amish may get a tad p!ssed too.
This is America ... what is ANYONE going to do? ... haul out a modified AK when staring down the barrel of a tank?Smurf said:... ... SO? What are the amish going to do?!
G1: So they couldn't bring a coconut back anyway.The Smoking Man said:Two African swallows and a bit of string.