Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-15-2011, 09:36 PM
 
25,021 posts, read 27,933,813 times
Reputation: 11790

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
I guess it ain't in the constitution then.

Then which state are we talking about with this bill? Besides, I'm more into people's rights than state versus federal rights.
Read the 10th Amendment. It says that if something is not in the Constitution, nor prohibited for the states to pass legislation on it, then that power is reserved to the States or to the people. Which means that, since the Constitution didn't specifically authorize the Feds to create an official language, it's something left up to the States or the people in that state can demand such a law be passed, through their representatives.

Just because something is not in the U.S. Constitution, doesn't mean it can't ever be legislated. The states DO NOT derive their authority from the U.S. Constitution. We are a federal republic, the federal government is not on top of the States. Such a system is called a unitary government, and an example of that would be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which we are not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-16-2011, 07:54 AM
 
9,240 posts, read 8,668,081 times
Reputation: 2225
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
Read the 10th Amendment. It says that if something is not in the Constitution, nor prohibited for the states to pass legislation on it, then that power is reserved to the States or to the people. Which means that, since the Constitution didn't specifically authorize the Feds to create an official language, it's something left up to the States or the people in that state can demand such a law be passed, through their representatives.

Just because something is not in the U.S. Constitution, doesn't mean it can't ever be legislated. The states DO NOT derive their authority from the U.S. Constitution. We are a federal republic, the federal government is not on top of the States. Such a system is called a unitary government, and an example of that would be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which we are not.
Correct. That was way the founders wanted it, to decentralize.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2011, 08:14 AM
 
9,240 posts, read 8,668,081 times
Reputation: 2225
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
And this has always been true. When my great grandfather died in Pennsylvania in 1941, he knew only a single English word: "potato."

And he mispronounced it.
Thats why people who come here need to learn English
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2011, 08:18 AM
 
9,240 posts, read 8,668,081 times
Reputation: 2225
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Why should they?
Because they should
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2011, 08:22 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,818,277 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
Read the 10th Amendment. It says that if something is not in the Constitution, nor prohibited for the states to pass legislation on it, then that power is reserved to the States or to the people...
You're missing the point. So I ask again. which state is this bill, that we're talking about, for?

BTW, I think ninth amendment is of some value? Or, must it always be ignored in favor of the tenth?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2011, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Norman, OK
3,478 posts, read 7,256,496 times
Reputation: 1201
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
Read the 10th Amendment. It says that if something is not in the Constitution, nor prohibited for the states to pass legislation on it, then that power is reserved to the States or to the people. Which means that, since the Constitution didn't specifically authorize the Feds to create an official language, it's something left up to the States or the people in that state can demand such a law be passed, through their representatives.
I am confused here. Are you or aren't you saying that Congress can pass a law dictating an official language for the US? I think it's a little bit confusing to refer to the 10th Amendment about states' rights (meaning federal government cannot dictate practices WITHIN states on those matters) and then say that we can ask our representatives to pass the law. For example, states are free to make their own laws about the drinking age or auto insurance, though the federal government can certainly provide "incentives" to make states follow a certain norm.

Quote:
Just because something is not in the U.S. Constitution, doesn't mean it can't ever be legislated. The states DO NOT derive their authority from the U.S. Constitution. We are a federal republic, the federal government is not on top of the States.
Huh? What do you mean by "on top"? Certainly federal laws supersede conflicting state laws. That is indeed being "superior" or "on top" of the states. For example, each state cannot make up their own voting laws. When state laws conflict with federal law, then, assuming constitutionality, the federal law wins.

Back on topic, I think it is a perfectly acceptable use of the Interstate Commerce clause that the federal government has the power to legislate an official language. And in fact, I believe that the OVERWHELMING majority of Americans favor an official language (I remember polls of 75-80%). I personally believe language is a unifying of a culture and national identity. That is not the same thing as restricting people's personal languages spoken at home or even within businesses (for example, if a store wants to put signs up in English and Spanish or Chinese, I have no issue with that).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2011, 08:42 AM
 
9,240 posts, read 8,668,081 times
Reputation: 2225
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Why do we need to spend tax dollars and time to pass a law that does that, when it can be accomplished without wasting money and time?
When its a law, it will be a penalty to do it any other way. Laws are meant to be followed
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2011, 08:43 AM
 
9,240 posts, read 8,668,081 times
Reputation: 2225
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
And I'm sure it is somewhere in the US constitution. But, where?
English is this countries native language. It was a forefathers language. Original founders of the 13 colonies were English.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2011, 08:44 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,818,277 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC View Post
When its a law, it will be a penalty to do it any other way. Laws are meant to be followed
Please understand the post you're addressing, and be coherent in your response. Thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC View Post
English is this countries native language. It was a forefathers language. Original founders of the 13 colonies were English.
So? Did they choose to be authoritarians about it? But even with a poor grasp of English, you made me think about how English would qualify as the native language, when several languages were existing at the time, and as thirteen colonies grew into states and more states joined in. Why should Hawaiians, for example, give up their native language?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2011, 09:58 AM
 
9,240 posts, read 8,668,081 times
Reputation: 2225
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
But I was speaking of the constitution. Is it there?
Do we use it? Apparently the constitution has been walked on and trample 10xs over

We are supposed to use gold & silver for money

Quote:
Section. 10.No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top