Replies

Not that you'll be interested in reading anything at this site, but I'm posting an excerpt to a 1995 article, with points that are still as relevant today as when it was written, and link just the same, in case others/lurkers are:

I found the article amusing. It started out by saying what I say (or I said what it said, whatever), in that English is the way to progress and everyone knows it. So far, so good. Then it lists a whole slew of gov't dumbass projects to waste money translating ballots and other crap. No disagreements there. THIS is what I found amusing:

Why are we doing this? Our laws require that naturalized citizens must "demonstrate an understanding of the English language, including the ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language." Before calling for a LAW to establish "English as the official language" the article ADMITS that the law already requires a naturalized citizen to have sufficient understand of English to get by for basic activities.

You want to fix the problem by passing a FEDERAL law. Oh, just GREAT! That'll damn sure fix it. Let's outlaw murder next, ok?

The same argument can be said for adding an amendment to the Constitution regarding how one goes about obtaining citizenship status; it's already in the Constitution re anchor babies. According to the Constitution, those kinds of children shall not be deemed a citizen, but because legislators/judges like to forget about the Constitution, or make false claims that what is said in the Constitution is "ambiguous", some would, and have, claimed that the Constitution calls anchor babies citizens. This same type of thing has occurred with the very First Amendment of the Constitution, wherein it states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Somehow, that's been twisted around into claims that unless God is "outlawed" [in direct contradiction to the First Amendment] from everything in society, "a religion" is being promoted. Isn't it ironic, though, that they're not clear about what "religion" is being promoted? When the word "God" is used, which ONE RELIGION does it "promote" Catholicism? Baptist? Judaism? Deism? Assemblies of God? Those are all DIFFERENT religions. I'd really like to know which ONE religion is being promoted by government by the word "God"? By forbidding the freedom to exercise religious expressions by believers of any of those faiths, the Constitution has been broken....flagrantly. We shouldn't need Constitutional amendments, ad nauseum, to fix case law, civil law, or criminal laws, and bring those laws in line with what the Constitution clearly says. Amusing or otherwise, there's plenty of people who believe that should be done.