I agree wholeheartedly, everyone should have and deserves adequate representation (with the critters now in DC, this is a whole other argument we won’t get into here).
I just don’t like hearing “they won’t let me” when someone wants to do something, when “I need to do something to get there”, is a viable (and better) option.
The question is whether the “something” should be a legally imposed qualification. When it comes to the instrumentalities of a democracy, such impositions should be kept to a minimum, if not non-existent.
Arizona, huh? Who woulda thunk it.
On one hand, I think it’s preposterous for a non-English speaker to run for elective office in the USA.
But in my opinion, the voters are smart enough to decide that for themselves. I don’t see any cause for removing the candidate from the ballot.
I do. There’s a law that requires it.
So there seem to be two distinct questions:
[ol]
[li]Is the law within the powers of the state of Arizona to make and enforce?[/li][li]Is the requirement a wise one?[/li][/ol]
Now if I were a constituent I would not vote for someone who spoke only Spanish, even if I lived in her district, because I personally would think bi-lingual would be necessary. Those would be my own personal standards, not something enacted in law. However, we do impose age restrictions on who can hold office, why not language restrictions.
ASL is not a form of signed English. Yes, deaf kids in America are taught to read and write in English, but that doesn’t mean ASL is similar to English. In fact, ASL is heavily derived from French Sign Language, while British Sign Language was created independently.
So deaf kids in Britain read and write English and sign with BSL, deaf kids in America read and write English and sign with ASL, but both BSL and ASL have no relationship to English, or each other.
Just to play devil’s advocate for a second, should the nation’s voters have the option of choosing someone constitutionally ineligible for president?
Don’t you think that this question is exactly the question that this thread has been about all along? I’m wondering why you saw the need to spell it out in exactly this manner.
I agree.
Probably because at least half of the discussion in the thread has revolved around the other question.
Apache?
Do you want to specify which constitutional eligibility requirement to discuss? Because otherwise, you’re question is not really making sense.
Bricker just said that (1) this seems to be a valid restriction, but (2) as a policy matter this particular restriction shouldn’t exist.
I don’t see how that logically leads into your nonspecific devil’s advocacy.
I agree. I’m just having a problem understanding how someone who, according to the OP, barely speaks/comprehends English, can hope to operate in a situation where English is, apparently, the language of government. Wouldn’t this put the constituents into the ‘not adequately represented’ category?
Seems Really Not All That Bright has a point concerning the ASC throwing out language requirements before, and she’ll end up winning her case.
But, as I’ve said before, if she wins her case, and if the voters put her in, then so be it. Good or ill, she is their representative. I’m just uncomfortable with the language barrier, not that she can’t speak English, but the comprehension of a lawmaker’s duties, some things do just get lost in translation.
The town she is running in speaks Spanish in all its day-to-day business. The only time English is used is at these Council meetings, presumably due to Arizona’s “official language” policy. English is legally required to be the “language of government” but speaking Spanish surely is not any barrier to representing the people voting for the office.
There are lots of places in Texas and Arizona where Spanish is the primary language for all people at all times. This has been the case since well before the current fears about Mexican immigration, and in some cases dates back to when those places were in fact part of Mexico. I don’t know if this surprises anyone, but I guess it’s worth mentioning in case you weren’t aware.
OK, so since the odds are even, how much would you like to bet? I’ll give you 2:1 odds.
If you don’t want to make a monetary bet, how about loser doesn’t post in GD for 1 month? I’d get 2 months if I lose.
What difference does it make? Age, natural born citizenship or residency will do. I figured in light of the birther stuff, Bricker would address that one.
Lets not pretend this is all happening in a vaccuum unless you think that we have come far enough that suspicions of racism are inappropriate. BTW, what sort fo “actual evidence” do you think could possibly exist? A secret taped conversation where the Arizona legislators admit that they passed the law because they are racist? It didn’t take a conspiracy of racist lawmakers to pass the Jim Crow laws.
Why is using an interpreter easier for some than others?
I thought this was interesting:
[
If no possible evidence can reasonably exist, then your only arguments are fallacious ones. Such arguments have no place in a debate, and when they come up can easily be dismisses as, well, fallacious.
If that’s what you meant, then I interpreted your post incorrectly. I’ll leave the practicality of that remedy for another thread.
Interesting, I knew Spanish was one of the dominate language in the southwest, but didn’t realize it was the dominate language in some areas. If that’s the case, then I’m not sure the need for the law is there. What’s the point?
While my feelings over the English/Spanish debate is probably obvious - when in Rome and all that - I’m open for reasonable exceptions, this seems to be one of them.
Ignorance fought.