Replies

I work on the Dade-Broward county line (Broward, thank God). I have hired several hispanic engineers, and approved of a several hispanic workers. They are great! And usually go out of their way to speak english when I am present, difficult as it is sometimes for them (more or less).

When I am around, and they speak spanish, I immediately say, "please speak English when I am present." What is strange, is that the best english-speaking (latin) enginer I have is a young woman, as fluent as I am in english. I think that she doesn't know better, but is learning quick. The older ones try very hard, but struggle more. I am very patient with them.

I have witnessed and have first hand knowledge of people at "lower levels" who have to put up with other workers who speak another language (at work) behind their back. It is not trivial. My ex is Cuban, and I learned to speak (rudimentary) spanish pretty well. I have listened to conversations where people speak another language and dennigrate another person right nex to them (previous job). If they did that here, I would take great pleasure in walking them out the door.

This is life in South Florida. It is real. Don't come here, unless you can deal with it, and want to make a bunch of money and leave.

This woman is for real, and speaks for thousands down here.

There is a huge problem with"divining" the intent of the Founders on the constitution.

Others can do it just as well as we can.

From: The Embarrassing Second Amendment.

"A standard move of those legal analysts who wish to limit the Second Amendment's force is to focus on its "preamble" as setting out a restrictive purpose. Recall Laurence Tribe's assertion that the purpose was to allow the states to keep their militias and to protect them against the possibility that the new national government will use its power to establish a powerful standing army and eliminate the state militias. This purposive reading quickly disposes of any notion that there is an "individual" right to keep and bear arms. The right, if such it be, is only a states's right. The consequence of this reading is obvious: the national government has the power to regulate--to the point of prohibition--private ownership of guns, since that has, by stipulation, nothing to do with preserving state militias. This is, indeed, the position of the ACLU, which reads the Amendment as protection only the right of "maintaining an effective state militia...[T]he individual's right to keep a nd bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated [state] militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected."

I don't know about you, but I just want the amendments to mean what they say. I think that the consequences of anything other than a straight interpretation can be dangerous.

The 14th Amendment was passed to address the issue of the newly freed slaves. It had nothing to do with immigration, which certainly was a neglible issue in 1865. A Supreme Court decision years later included the offspring of illegal aliens, visitors, whatever. A new challenge based on the original intent of the Amendment might give a different result, much to the dismay of La Razists and Cuban fiction writers.