Home My Political Opinion Constitutional Amendments
Constitutional Amendments
PDF  | Print |  E-mail

English as a National Language

 

Should there be a national language? The answer in my opinion is definitely, YES!

Let's speak to what makes a national language so important.

1) A national language will benefit all people in the USA. Everyone will benefit because there will be no cast system based upon language after the first generation immigrants are schooled. True, those who have newly immigrated into the USA may not know the language as well as one might like but they can learn a rudimentary English. Enough to vote or perform other tasks where, with help from others they can succeed.

2) The country will benefit by bringing all people together with a common language so they can communicate ideas. Without a common language communication is difficult at best. The USA needs a top notch workforce who can communicate efficiently. Other countries are blessed or cursed, depending upon your view point, with a more or less common language. Take Japan for example. They communicate and function as a cohesive group, in part, due the their ability to communicate in the same language.

3) The USA is blessed with one of the most diverse cultures in the world. The USA has, in the past, been able to accommodate the influx of immigrants because the immigrants came with the expectation that English must be learned. If we look at 2 cultures who thrive well in the USA, Korean and Vietnamese, one will see these immigrants have the expectation of learning English. That is not to say, they don't expect first and second generation children to learn their own cultural language. These particular immigrants understand the importance of a unifying language to better themselves and the country they live in. 

Most importantly, I don't see these 2 cultures backing away from trying to bring the best of their own culture with them. The Chinese seem to have brought the best of their culture with them as well. I see dragon dances on the Lunar New Year. Festivals of Chinese culture and private Chinese backed schools teaching Chinese. Yet the Chinese as the Korean and Vietnamese learn English.

By the way, there is something unique about the thought process of each different language. Those who speak Spanish seem to arrive at different conclusions than those who speak Korean or English. When trying to compete in the World Market a diversity of ideas helps drive more robust innovation. As a melting pot the USA has been able to benefit from the influx in the diversity of thought from its immigrants since the countries inception.

4) Education for the masses is simplified with a common language. Massachusetts tried to teach in various languages depending upon the base culture of the student. They found the concept of having many different languages in the school system disruptive to the education process and to the society as a hole. So paraphrased from a quote by former Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney.

Teaching in one language is easier than trying to teach the same subject in multiple languages. Again that is not to dismiss the other languages. Each culture should pickup the teaching of their culture and language to their children. The responsibility of the USA is to bring together everyone without discrimination into one cohesive nation. A unified language base is required to do this. 

5) The USA is historically an English speaking country. The majority of individuals speak English. For the most part English is spoken as a second language in the rest of the world. There are some obvious other languages that are also held in high regard. Spanish is widely spoken throughout the world as is Chinese. The USA needs to pick a national language. I think English should the the language of choice due to its current status as dominate in the USA and its prevalence in the world.

6) Whether the requirement for a national language should be a Constitutional amendment or just a law is up for debate. I prefer the idea of a Constitutional amendment because an amendment shows all people the importance of the concept. Also an amendment is harder to change.

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Constitutional Amendments

 

Many people want amendments to the US constitution. To say the least some proposed amendments are well thought out and have practical application in our lives. Other amendments are proposed to add fluff to a political candidate's rhetoric. The politician knows full well the proposed amendment will never become law. For political proposes the amendments are proposed to induce a response from a given contingency. As I have time I will comment on proposals for Constitutional Amendments.  

 

 

Make Abortion Illegal

 


Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.

Abortion is such a controversial subject that I have a special blog just for it. A constitutional amendment on abortion is not in the best interest of the country and has nothing to due with our moral fiber. Quite the contrary, a constitutional amendment making abortion illegal would unleash a mass of death only seen before Row vs Wade. Abortion is not something that can be legislated.

Stay away from this one. Don't even talk about it as it is grist for a mill that has long since been closed, resolved.

Don't mistake an unwillingness to support an amendment on abortion as support for abortion. I just realize this is one mater law can not control. If the Federal Government wants to say they will not pay for abortions that is fine. The decision for a abortion is still up to the mother.

Let this one rest it has been ask and answered many times. 

 

Define Marriage

 


The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.

What a dead horse. The Federal Government should not define marriage. In fact they need not even have a discussion of marriage in the tax code or any law as it is discriminatory to those who do marry vs. those who just live together. I would actually propose that state and local governments get out of the marriage license business altogether. If two persons want marriage they can go to a church. The church should provide a legal document that protects the man and woman should they divorce. No filing of the marriage document need exist outside of the church. Whither two individuals are married or not is none of the governments business as marriage is a religious concept.

Again don't get me wrong. I support marriage. I just don't support the governments role in licensing marriage or taxing marriage.


Whether the couple is male - male, male - female, or female - female is none of my business. Let nature take is course. We can not control love.

Let's look at a law defining marriage in another light. Would this law be of benefit to anyone? The answer is a resounding NO!!!! Would the law harm anyone? The answer is YES!! It would harm all couples who want to marry who are not in the definition of marriage. It would harm couples who are within the definition because the government can now track them for what ever reason including increasing their taxes.

So a Constitutional amendment on marriage would harm someone, be of no benefit to anyone, and allow the government to be discriminatory to some class of individuals. Does this sound like a good idea to you?



 

 

Balanced Budget

 

Require the federal government to balance its budget every year

Wow, what an important issue. What a timely issue. What a politically charged issue.  This is one of the most important amendments I can think of. We need this one and now. We need it to have teeth.

Here is my view. We need a balanced budget amendment that states the budget must be balanced at all times. Yes, the budget must be balanced at all times.  Once more, the budget must be balanced at all times. I am afraid that if we allow for an exception the Congress and President will always invoke the exception and the amendment will be ignored as so many of the others are ignored or simply violated. 

Further, the law must have some teeth to it. For example the Congress must pass the budget for the next calendar year by September 1st. If not the entire congress shall be re-elected by November 1st and installed in office by December 1st. Similarly, if the next congress does not pass a balanced budget by some specific time frame another election shall take place until a budget is passed. If the President does not ratify the budget by the third pass he too must be re-elected. 

No sitting president or Congressman at the time of a forced re-election due to failure to pass a balanced budget may run for Congress or President for the term of their lifetime. 

In other words I don't want to mess around with politicians who are not going to follow the law. Put teeth into the law so they must follow the law or face sever consequences. 

By the way,  other Constitutional Amendments with out teeth should be changed to force compliance. The same is true with the laws on Congress to even present a budget. The Congress should be thrown out and a new one installed until we get a Congress that will follow the law.


 


 

 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 3

Members Login

Joomla Templates by Joomlashack