http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/us/judge-orders-arizona-candidate-struck-from-ballot-over-english-skills.html?_r=3

I can't believe this is even considered debatable.   

I can't believe this is even considered debatable.   

Seriously yeah.. Well thats you get from groups like LaRaza.

I can't believe this is even considered debatable.   

Aww, heck! C'mon let's debate this one just for giggles.

First off, there really isn't enough information about this matter to begin. The absence of information makes it difficult to understand the basis for the court's decision. My perception is that the case was not about the disqualification inasmuch as it was about the constitutionality of criteria for qualified candidates. There must have been a constitutional challenge of the criteria. If the criteria was upheld as constitutional and the selection/review committee's decision was held not to be arbitrary and capricious (i.e. based on the conclusions of a linguist), then I can see the court upholding the committee's decision to remove the candidate off the ballot.

I'd hate to have a sitting council member who is unable to efficiently communicate in English.  Comprehension of the English language and speaking are two different things. However, the two often go hand in hand so someone who cannot speak a language proficiently more often then not, cannot comprehend it as well.

Notwithstanding my position, I do have some concerns about the results.

Aren't the voters supposed to make the determination of whether the candidate is qualified or not? Isn't it the right of the voters to choose whom they want as a representative? Doesn't the disqualification of a candidate on account of language proficiency really about depriving people of the right to choose? Isn't the disqualification really a statement about a select group of people substituting your judgment for theirs? Isn't this the same thing as saying I know what's best for  you or I know your needs better than you do? Doesn't the disqualification lend itself to a slippery slope argument with respect to other characteristics, traits or beliefs?

I figure it this way, if you can't speak, read, and write basic english -- you don't even meet the requirements to be a citizen if you were applying to do so.

Maybe its the country man in me, and we just had this debate in my office tonight, but if you can't speak, write, and comprehend English properly how could you even possibly have a grasp of laws, regulations, and other measures, when they are done in English.  English or bust. This is for public office. If I write to you in our countries language, you need to be able to understand that writing.  If I smack you with a lawsuit, you shouldn't need a translator to understand wtf you are doing wrong. Government is a business, and if you can't run the business and communicate in it effectively, you have no reason to be in office.

Also, of importantance, at least to me, is that if you are writing rules, regulations, policies, or other items that may affect citizens constitutional rights, privledges, immunities, or spending our money, you need a solid grasp and command of basic mathmatics and english.  How else could you really do it? If someone else is doing ALL of it for you, then they are in the City Council seat by proxy.  I think there is a difference between putting out some tasking, as in "Hey go work on this," in comparison to "Hey, I know you have no idea what this says, but vote yes."

I'm currently looking around for the opinion, but I can't find it.  It does say the person was tested by some phd's to test the proficiency of her language abilities. The results were considered a failure.

Aren't the voters supposed to make the determination of whether the candidate is qualified or not? Isn't it the right of the voters to choose whom they want as a representative? Doesn't the disqualification of a candidate on account of language proficiency really about depriving people of the right to choose? Isn't the disqualification really a statement about a select group of people substituting your judgment for theirs? Isn't this the same thing as saying I know what's best for  you or I know your needs better than you do? Doesn't the disqualification lend itself to a slippery slope argument with respect to other characteristics, traits or beliefs?

In a word, no, the voters don't get to determine the qualification requirements, at least not without a constitutional amendment.  That's the difference between a constitutional republic and a straight democracy.  True democracy is nothing more than organized mob rule, and leads to chaos pretty quickly.  The reason we do it the way we do is for this exact sort of thing; if the voters got to make that determination, there's nothing to stop the Catholics, Muslims, Latinos, or other group from mobilizing their base and using a simple majority to elect the Pope, the Ayatollah, or Fidel Castro's son to be a governor, city councilman, or president of the United States.  If the Pope ran as a third party candidate, they might not even need a simple majority to elect him, they could do it with, say, 35% of the vote if the other two candidates split the rest of the vote evenly. 

Esto ni siquiera es un debate. Yo no hablan Inglés, pero quiero ser un político. ¿por qué no?


Por lo menos yo soy apuesto y dueño de una gran cantidad de armas de fuego.

Esto ni siquiera es un debate. Yo no hablan Inglés, pero quiero ser un político. ¿por qué no?


Por lo menos yo soy apuesto y dueño de una gran cantidad de armas de fuego.

Hahaha.  Or as my mexican sister-in-law would put it: jajaja. 

o ang gusto ninyo i ito sinasabi sa tagalog?

siguro lahat na magsulat i mula ngayon ay sa tagalog

o ang gusto ninyo i ito sinasabi sa tagalog?

siguro lahat na magsulat i mula ngayon ay sa tagalog

wow.  good looking AND educated?  and armed?

Quote from: Kingkeoni on January 26, 2012, 11:40:58 PM

o ang gusto ninyo i ito sinasabi sa tagalog?

siguro lahat na magsulat i mula ngayon ay sa tagalog

wow.  good looking AND educated?  and armed?

Hahaha, I figured id throw in the good looking part. 

Esto ni siquiera es un debate. Yo no hablan Inglés, pero quiero ser un político. ¿por qué no?


Por lo menos yo soy apuesto y dueño de una gran cantidad de armas de fuego.

AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

What were you saying again?

Just kidding.

I definitely believe that in order to hold any political office in America, one should be capable of communicating in English.

The result of this case, whatever it might be, will set precedent for the future.

o ang gusto ninyo i ito sinasabi sa tagalog?

siguro lahat na magsulat i mula ngayon ay sa tagalog

Sinabi mo, pare.  Sino pa ba dito nakaka-intindi?

Sinabi mo, pare.  Sino pa ba dito nakaka-intindi?

Apparently no one. 

Apparently no one. 

Ingrish!  Ingrish!

Ingrish!  Ingrish!

Thats the only thing I've said in English on this thread.

But for you, I'll translate.

I said that I should type everything I type in Tagalog.

Then he said, right on, he agrees, who else here understands.

Then I said apparently no one.

Translation= $ .25

Thats the only thing I've said in English on this thread.

But for you, I'll translate.

I said that I should type everything I type in Tagalog.

Then he said, right on, he agrees, who else here understands.

Then I said apparently no one.

Translation= $ .25

You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.  I shall bring your quarter to the next HDF shoot!

You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.  I shall bring your quarter to the next HDF shoot!