Constitutional Amendment Poll

[manleyistheman]

No entiendo. Puden traducir a Espanol? Ha, ha!

All joking aside, any ideas about establishing an official language are founded in simple generalizations about 'majority' of immigrants wanting free handouts while making zero effort to assimilate themselves in the culture. Its evident in the tone towards immigrants used by those in favor of an official language.

No one appreciates the opportunities available here more than an immigrant. I think it's in an immigrant's best interest to NOT make things easy for him/her. It would force him/her to learn the language. At the same time, there is no need for an official language.

[Larry]

Originally posted by manleyistheman

All joking aside, any ideas about establishing an official language are founded in simple generalizations about 'majority' of immigrants wanting free handouts while making zero effort to assimilate themselves in the culture. Its evident in the tone towards immigrants used by those in favor of an official language.

Don't you suppose that maybe part of the reason some folks find the idea of an official language to be attractive, is that many people have found themselves, although briefly, in places where they really got the impression (perhaps mistakenly, but still, they got the impression) that if you don't speak Spanish, then you're not welcome around here?

Or maybe some of them came to this conclusion because they heard about cases (maybe rare, and maybe blown out of proportion, but still, they've happened) in which people who've applied for jobs answering phones for a company, have been turned down for failing to speak English, and the folks turned down then sue, claiming that it's unfair for an employer to require people speaking on the phone be able to speak one particular language. (And, the plaintiff's won)?

Maybe some of them have a problem, when they call a business, having to wait while the annoying automated voice-mail system tells them to press 8 if they don't speak English. (Granted, "talking" to a voice-mail system if irritating in itself. But, irritated people often find things to attach their irritation to.)

Just pointing out that the desire to have a single national language doesn't have to be founded on prejudice, racism, and ignorance.

[manleyistheman]

Larry,

Do you suppose that if a person were truly not welcomed in a place by a group that spoke a different language, and an amendment was passed making English the official language, that the same group would suddenly welcome him/her with open arms?

As I stated in my third paragraph but you chose to ignore, the system should NOT make things easier on immigrants that do not speak the language. If a job applicant cannot meet a language requirement, then he/she should not get the job. No lawsuit, and certainly no verdict in favor of the plaintiff. If there truly is a case where that happened, I’d be interested in reading about it.

As for the inconvenience of and additional option for non-English speakers, are you kidding me? You think this warrants a constitutional amendment? Do you realize how many amendments there have been in the history of the United States?

[Larry]

Originally posted by manleyistheman

As for the inconvenience of and additional option for non-English speakers, are you kidding me? You think this warrants a constitutional amendment? Do you realize how many amendments there have been in the history of the United States?

Actually, yes, I am. That's why I voted for "leave it the way it is". (And pointed out my disapointment that "my" group was so small.)

I would oppose such an ammentment on the grounds that it shouldn't be in the Constitution. (Although, I might support it as a law.)

I was just pointing out that racism may not be the only reason for liking the idea.

[Darth Tater]

Maybe it's because I've seen the negative effects of term limits and believe the voter should take responsibility if they feel terms should be limited but I don't really like term limits. Congress has, at least for the last half-century, been an extrodinarily wimpy bunch. Of cours, maybe term limits would get them to do the right thing, not just the popular thing or, worse, do little but talk in a way to play both sides so as to maximize re-election chances. However, I believe that the best way to eliminate career politicians is via the power of the vote and making government smaller.

We've got a court system that CREATES law! They are in love with a system of jurisprudence, Positive Law, that is anathema to the Classical Liberal position (which believes that Law is not the product of human reason, see Hume , Locke, Jefferson, Adams and others) upon which this country was founded.

[Baculus]

We should always be VERY careful when amending the Constitution. Some issues, such as the Flag Burning or Marriage Amendment, are unworthy of an amendment. Either of these can be decided on a state level if warranted or needed. (And, BTW, a traditional conservative would be against either of these amendments as well. Mucking around needlessly with the Constitution is a big no-no for any self-respecting conservative.)

The language amendment could also be handled on a state level, though I believe a common language needs to be recognized. The tradition of immigrant assimulation is needed in this nation to continue a common culture, which includes language. And I am not thrilled with bi-lingual courses if the students cannot speak our common tongue in the first place. The last thing we need is for this nation to become Balkanized.

I can understand a desire for a Congressional Term Limits Amendment, but one issue is see with this is the amount of time it sometimes takes for a Congressman to actually learn how to operate within Captitol Hill. Just when a Congressman becomes familiar with the nuances of government in D.C., he cannot be re-elected. Of course, this may be a good issue, but perhaps worthy of a state law as well.

A Balanced Budget Amendment in theory sounds spiffy, but is it really realistic, and can the Federal government operate under those conditions. Perhaps naively, I would think they would be able to, though I haven't done enough research on the subject. (Of course, this means that Supply Side economics wouldn't be a viable with this amendment, so perhaps it really is a good issue to consider.)

All in all, most of these proposed amendments could be handled on the state level, I believe. And especially ones, such as the Marriage Amendment, that are too socially conservative for many Americans, I believe it is best to leave well enough alone, unless we truly need an amendment to resolve an issue. (And the Gay Marriage issue isn't a huge one, IMHO. I believe that decision can be left to the various churches to decide if they want to approve or perform the ceremony. After all, it's their church.)

[Woofer]

Originally posted by Neophyte

Funny, I named 4 in my last post.

Just because someone does not have name recognition does not mean they do not have power and influence. Look at the list of the most powerful in Hollywood every year. Most of the top names are producers and studio execs who are not house hold names. Washington is the same way. Go back in history and ask such shining examples of the Presidency as Grant, Coolidge, Harding and Andrew Johnson if being the President made them the most powerful men in Washington. History says the answer is no.

Then look at some those who are considered examples of excellent Presidents and see what you find. Kennedy had to die to get his civil rights agenda passed. Woodrow Wilson died without the Senate ever ratifying the treaty that would have made the US a member of the League of Nations. Andrew Jackson was censured.

The truth is that the President is still only one man and still subject to the checks and balances of power built into the Constitution. A long serving Congressman or Senator can kill so much of what a President wants to do that it is not funny. I would submit that the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader often have more power than the President does.

It's the ones you DON'T know about that you need to be concerned with. Those are the guys with the real power. The ones behind the scenes pulling the strings.

[Cskin]

I know a lot more hispanics that have a better work ethic then whites or blacks, just because you see a few slacking doesn't mean all are like that. You probably don't even understand how different hispanics are in south america, central america, and spain.

Jbooma.. you misunderstood the phrase "it's a given". There is NO DOUBT Hispanics have a strong work ethic.... I thought all people knew that... hence the phrase... it's a given". You don't work in the hot sun picking vegetables, among othe labor jobs, and not have a strong work ethic.

I worked in the grocery business in Altanta 8 years ago and had the responsibility to hire one of the store's grocery crews to work in a store in my region. I hired a Hispanic.. a legal hispanic.... and soon hired all of his friends. They were the best damn crew in the region... busted their rear ends and would have worked 7 days a week had I asked them. They'd get pissed if the truck the grocery manager ordered wasn't big enough... and absolutely hated to take days off.

I'll well aware of their work ethic... and I admire it. I don't dislike Hispanics, or immigrants from any country. I dislike the way our politicians use them to curry votes and.. in essence... stick it to American citizens... either born or naturalized.