Push for 'official' English heats up

Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 12:14 pm
I thought this was interesting (from joefromchicago's Alaska link):

Torrisi emphasized that his ruling should not be read as requiring that government use any language but English, hire translators, or write forms in any language but English.

Now why would he stress that? I appreciate that he wasn't ruling on that per se. Perhaps that was all he meant.

Could there be a legitimate constitutional challenge?
0 Replies
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 02:24 am
ebrown_p wrote:
This is basically a law that does nothing.

What's the point?

Pandering to citizens disgruntled with announcements like "for English, press two". I'm not saying "Official English" laws necessarily have any point beyond that, and I'm not saying I support these laws, which I don't. But it's one thing to say that "official English laws" tend to be superfluous. It's another thing to suggest that they "contradict the rights of individuals or local communities" or "prohibit the tax-paying American citizens in its community from choosing to implement a bilingual program". Although Joe has cited two laws where this was the case, this doesn't seem to be typical for "Official English" laws in general. Most of those laws I have seen are really just superfluous.
0 Replies

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Drs. = female doctor? - Question by oristarA
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 01/26/2023 at 09:43:24