because some lazy ass scum refuse to learn the language of the country.
There is no national language in the United States. Because of that, there is no "requirement" to learn the national language. The "unofficial" language(s) of the US is determined by the language(s) that those in the US speak.
Our founding documents are in english, our government business is done in english and the huge vast majority of people in the US speak english. Therefore English is our language. SO those coming to this country to live here should learn english. Scumbag politicians shouldn't be forcing any business and taxpayers to cater to other languages.There is no national language in the United States. .
Our founding documents are in english, our government business is done in english and the huge vast majority of people in the US speak english. Therefore English is our language. SO those coming to this country to live here should learn english. Scumbag politicians shouldn't be forcing any business and taxpayers to cater to other languages.
There is no national language in the United States. Because of that, there is no "requirement" to learn the national language. The "unofficial" language(s) of the US is determined by the language(s) that those in the US speak.
But there should be a requirement to service all languages?
Let's say I own a gun range. Would it be safe for me to let someone onto the range who could not understand range commands because of language?
.....uh. Yeah. Your gun range. Your rules. Nothing to do with the government.
Alarmed that a professional golf association proposed to exclude competitors who don’t speak English, the state Senate acted today to prohibit businesses in California from discriminating against customers, including refusing them service, based on the language they use.
Please point out the text in the Constitution that require the President to be male.And yet most of the founding fathers spoke multiple languages, they made no constitutional provisions for a national language and when writing the constitution stated clearly that the president should be a male. If we're going by historicity then your argument fails.
Hatuey said:And yet most of the founding fathers spoke multiple languages, they made no constitutional provisions for a national language and when writing the constitution stated clearly that the president should be a male. If we're going by historicity then your argument fails.JamesRage said:Our founding documents are in english, our government business is done in english and the huge vast majority of people in the US speak english. Therefore English is our language. SO those coming to this country to live here should learn english. Scumbag politicians shouldn't be forcing any business and taxpayers to cater to other languages.
But there should be a requirement to service all languages?
Please point out the text in the Constitution that require the President to be male.
Could be claimed but would be totally wrong. There is no Constitutional language forbiding women to be president.I always found this "back to the founding fathers" argument quite absurd. There are many things that the founding fathers advocated that would seem absolutely ridiculous to support today, slavery being the most obvious example. I don't see you [JamesRage] opposing Obama's presidency on the grounds that he's black and belongs in the fields and not the Oval Office.
Personally I don't really care about discussing the legislation, as it doesn't directly affect me and I'm really not interested in getting in the middle of such a typical liberal/conservative whinefest. I was merely responding to JamesRage's assertion that English is the US's national language and that everyone that lives in the US must learn English.
However it is interesting now to note how hypocritical his position is, whereby he is against the legislation forcing businesses to cater to people that can't speak English under the guise of "freedom" (or whatever you would like to call it) but would support legislation forcing millions of people to learn English.
The first female presidential candidate was Victoria Woodhull in 1872. However, the legitimacy of her candidacy was questioned because of her sex:
"* She was a woman.
This was the most cited legal impediment in the 19th century. Some of Woodhull's contemporaries believed that because she was a woman she was not a citizen and, therefore, not entitled to vote. Since the Constitution required that the President be a citizen, she would also be excluded from holding the office of President. Others believed women were citizens, but that the states had the right to limit the franchise to males only. Some Woodhull supporters believed that even if Woodhull could not vote legally, that would not have excluded her from running for public office. United States law has its roots in English common law, and under English common law, there was an established precedence of women holding public office."
-Wikipedia
The issue of citizenship could certainly be claims for supporting Hatuey's statement.
Could be claimed but would be totally wrong. There is no Constitutional language forbiding women to be president.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?