Jump to content
IGNORED

Candidate barred for improper command of english


ayin jade

Recommended Posts

Guest shiloh357

Yep, and if she can't speak the language, then she has no business running for office and she is out in left field if she thinks that she is going to win anyway. It's just a matter of speaking English, either. It includes being able to communicate in writing and by other elctronic means. It is also a matter of understanding legal and governmental jargon that often uses words that a person without a VERY good understanding of English won't understand. It will effect her ability to communicate effectively and efficiently with the her peers and her constituency. Her ability to conduct day to day affairs will be severely hampered if every one has to slow down so she can understand what is being said, much less wait for her to find the right words in English to respond.

She is rightly barred from running.

I'd like to ask you then, whether people with Developmental Disabilities, or Mental Illnesses, or people who have Disabilities that affect Motor Functions should be allowed to run if they "have trouble communicating in English via Speech, Writing, or other Electronic Means." (To paraphrase what you said.)

Part of my volunteer work involves people who happen to face challenges like that. Are they then "rightly barred from running for office" as well?

Yes, they would be rightly barred. They would not be competent to hold the office, so they should not run nor should they be allowed or encouraged to run for office. We are electing people to do a job. The types of disabilities, especially mental illness you are describing will necessarily affect one's ablity to do that job effectively and efficiently.

We are talking about being elected to offices that require people to make decisions and communicate effectively for the good of us all. Elected office is not the place for some liberal social experiment. Not everyone is competent to hold elected office. That is just the cold hard truith.

I have seen first hand what happens in companies when people who are mentally ill get promotions for which they were not really qualified to have due to their disabilities and they were not able to handle the responsibilities nor were they able to effictively work as a "team player" with their co-workers and had to be demoted.

Don't make fools out of people by encouraging them to run for an office they are not qualified to hold. It doesn't do them any favors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  21
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,009
  • Content Per Day:  0.29
  • Reputation:   100
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  09/20/2005
  • Status:  Offline

Yes, they would be rightly barred. They would not be competent to hold the office, so they should not run nor should they be allowed or encouraged to run for office.

Alright. Two more questions. This law is just in Arizona. (Right now)

Would you like to see that law at a National/Federal level?

Would you want that applied the same as the two instances we've discussed in this thread? (Alejandrina Cabrera, and the hypothetical example I posed to you.)

Maybe one more follow up after this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

Yes, they would be rightly barred. They would not be competent to hold the office, so they should not run nor should they be allowed or encouraged to run for office.

Alright. Two more questions. This law is just in Arizona. (Right now)

Would you like to see that law at a National/Federal level?

Would you want that applied the same as the two instances we've discussed in this thread? (Alejandrina Cabrera, and the hypothetical example I posed to you.)

Maybe one more follow up after this.

I don't think we need it. You don't find anyone running for office at a Federal Level who cannot speak our langauge fluently or has mental illnesses (although they often govern like they do). But yes, if an immigrant from Venezuela decides he wants to run for office in the House of Rep's, if he cannot speak our lanaguage fluently, he should not be allowed to run. Being able to speak our language well, if one is a first generation immigrant reflects well on them, as it takes a certain level of commitment to get that far. But it's more than that.

What do you think about our constitutional law that bars any American from running for office if they are not natural born US citizens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  21
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,009
  • Content Per Day:  0.29
  • Reputation:   100
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  09/20/2005
  • Status:  Offline

I don't think we need it. You don't find anyone running for office at a Federal Level who cannot speak our langauge fluently or has mental illnesses (although they often govern like they do). But yes, if an immigrant from Venezuela decides he wants to run for office in the House of Rep's, if he cannot speak our lanaguage fluently, he should not be allowed to run. Being able to speak our language well, if one is a first generation immigrant reflects well on them, as it takes a certain level of commitment to get that far. But it's more than that.

Alright. What criteria would you use to determine that?

What do you think about our constitutional law that bars any American from running for office if they are not natural born US citizens?

I don't really have an opinion on the law itself. Do you think Obama was born outside of the United States?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
shiloh357, on 10 February 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

I don't think we need it. You don't find anyone running for office at a Federal Level who cannot speak our langauge fluently or has mental illnesses (although they often govern like they do). But yes, if an immigrant from Venezuela decides he wants to run for office in the House of Rep's, if he cannot speak our lanaguage fluently, he should not be allowed to run. Being able to speak our language well, if one is a first generation immigrant reflects well on them, as it takes a certain level of commitment to get that far. But it's more than that.

Alright. What criteria would you use to determine that?

I think it is apparent who does and does not have a good command of English. But it's not just knowing English. It is being able to handle the kind of legaleese and government jargon that will cross their desk. Being able to read and think in those terms is important. Do you think just anyone should be allowed to run for office?

Quote

What do you think about our constitutional law that bars any American from running for office if they are not natural born US citizens?

I don't really have an opinion on the law itself. Do you think Obama was born outside of the United States?

No, but if he were, he would be disaqualified from holding the office of Pres. Regardless of his English prowess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  44
  • Topic Count:  6,189
  • Topics Per Day:  0.85
  • Content Count:  43,901
  • Content Per Day:  6.05
  • Reputation:   11,364
  • Days Won:  58
  • Joined:  01/03/2005
  • Status:  Offline

Candidates for president must be 35 years old at the minimum. Is that also discrimination?

As it happens, this town in Arizona has had a law on its books for years that says a person in political office in the town MUST be competent in english. She is not. She is inelligible by the standards and law set by that town.

Yall outside of the US can do what you want. Arizona can do what it wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  1,285
  • Topics Per Day:  0.16
  • Content Count:  17,917
  • Content Per Day:  2.22
  • Reputation:   355
  • Days Won:  19
  • Joined:  10/01/2002
  • Status:  Offline

The letter of the law is what matters in America.

This is laughable because you've been all over this forum defending the actions of an American President who thinks, acts, and Governs as if he is above the Law.:thumbsup::laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

The letter of the law is what matters in America.

This is laughable because you've been all over this forum defending the actions of an American President who thinks, acts, and Governs as if he is above the Law.:thumbsup::laugh:

Isn't that the truth!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  1,022
  • Topics Per Day:  0.15
  • Content Count:  39,193
  • Content Per Day:  5.92
  • Reputation:   9,978
  • Days Won:  78
  • Joined:  10/01/2006
  • Status:  Offline

If she cannot FULFILL the requirements of the office (and she can't) then she is not eligible to RUN for said office, even if she was a blonde haired, blue eyed Swede. It can't be made any clearer than that and your inference that we, as Americans, are biased and racist is offensive, especially since we have elected a black President and most other non-African countries have not. Get a clue, my friend; foreign nationals don't always know just what is what in America. :rolleyes:

I never said anything about Racism, nor did I intend to imply anything of the sort. All that I said is that is the kind of precedent that would be cited if this where to be a court case. You made that connection yourself.

The letter of the law is what matters in America. (And how it has been interpreted by the courts.)

Under the Law, she has every right to run for office. If there is a law stating that she must conduct Government Business in English, then she must Conduct Government Business in English. Otherwise, since there is no law that states that she cannot run, she has every right to.

Making a judgement that she cannot fulfill those requirements prematurely and barring her from running otherwise has no legal precedent and has no law supporting it.

It's kind of like how convicted felons are not allowed to vote in America, but if someone is accused or in the middle of trial for a felony, they have the right to vote.

The law does not allow ones personal biases to be placed upon it.

This statement.........

"People have every right to apply social pressure, or to believe what they believe regarding this, but there is no precedent in this manner for selectively applying freedoms regarding running for office. Laws that required, for example, people to be able to pass a reading test were struck down since those laws were used to keep African Americans from voting in the South. That's the kind of precedent that would likely be cited in a case like this."

most certainly implies racism, B.E., even if you didn't mean it that way and even if such a precedent could be used.... as does this one:

"The law does not allow ones personal biases to be placed upon it."

Remember, the state of Arizona is following it's own law here and bias against Latinos is scant; we have many people of that ethnicity in public office in the U.S. and, yes, in Arizona. We, as a people, have worked hard to put the past where it belongs....in the past. As I said before, foreign nationals don't always know what works best here. No offense intended. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  13
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,194
  • Content Per Day:  0.29
  • Reputation:   34
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/18/2004
  • Status:  Offline

I think it is interesting that the liberals will castigate people like Sarah Palin or other conservatives for every mispoken word or minor error of history as prove they are not qualified or intelligent enough to hold office, particularly that as president, but seem to turn the other way and ignore a bad command of English just because the person running for office is not a native born American.

People have the right to vote for any idiot they want to and those idiots should have the right to stand for election. That doesn't mean that their opponents are restricted from pointing out their idiocy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • You are coming up higher in this season – above the assignments of character assassination and verbal arrows sent to manage you, contain you, and derail your purpose. Where you have had your dreams and sleep robbed, as well as your peace and clarity robbed – leaving you feeling foggy, confused, and heavy – God is, right now, bringing freedom back -- now you will clearly see the smoke and mirrors that were set to distract you and you will disengage.

      Right now God is declaring a "no access zone" around you, and your enemies will no longer have any entry point into your life. Oil is being poured over you to restore the years that the locust ate and give you back your passion. This is where you will feel a fresh roar begin to erupt from your inner being, and a call to leave the trenches behind and begin your odyssey in your Christ calling moving you to bear fruit that remains as you minister to and disciple others into their Christ identity.

      This is where you leave the trenches and scale the mountain to fight from a different place, from victory, from peace, and from rest. Now watch as God leads you up higher above all the noise, above all the chaos, and shows you where you have been seated all along with Him in heavenly places where you are UNTOUCHABLE. This is where you leave the soul fight, and the mind battle, and learn to fight differently.

      You will know how to live like an eagle and lead others to the same place of safety and protection that God led you to, which broke you out of the silent prison you were in. Put your war boots on and get ready to fight back! Refuse to lay down -- get out of bed and rebuke what is coming at you. Remember where you are seated and live from that place.

      Acts 1:8 - “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses … to the end of the earth.”

       

      ALBERT FINCH MINISTRY
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 1 reply
    • George Whitten, the visionary behind Worthy Ministries and Worthy News, explores the timing of the Simchat Torah War in Israel. Is this a water-breaking moment? Does the timing of the conflict on October 7 with Hamas signify something more significant on the horizon?

       



      This was a message delivered at Eitz Chaim Congregation in Dallas Texas on February 3, 2024.

      To sign up for our Worthy Brief -- https://worthybrief.com

      Be sure to keep up to date with world events from a Christian perspective by visiting Worthy News -- https://www.worthynews.com

      Visit our live blogging channel on Telegram -- https://t.me/worthywatch
      • 0 replies
    • Understanding the Enemy!

      I thought I write about the flip side of a topic, and how to recognize the attempts of the enemy to destroy lives and how you can walk in His victory!

      For the Apostle Paul taught us not to be ignorant of enemy's tactics and strategies.

      2 Corinthians 2:112  Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices. 

      So often, we can learn lessons by learning and playing "devil's" advocate.  When we read this passage,

      Mar 3:26  And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. 
      Mar 3:27  No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strongman; and then he will spoil his house. 

      Here we learn a lesson that in order to plunder one's house you must first BIND up the strongman.  While we realize in this particular passage this is referring to God binding up the strongman (Satan) and this is how Satan's house is plundered.  But if you carefully analyze the enemy -- you realize that he uses the same tactics on us!  Your house cannot be plundered -- unless you are first bound.   And then Satan can plunder your house!

      ... read more
        • Thumbs Up
      • 231 replies
    • Daniel: Pictures of the Resurrection, Part 3

      Shalom everyone,

      As we continue this study, I'll be focusing on Daniel and his picture of the resurrection and its connection with Yeshua (Jesus). 

      ... read more
      • 13 replies
    • Abraham and Issac: Pictures of the Resurrection, Part 2
      Shalom everyone,

      As we continue this series the next obvious sign of the resurrection in the Old Testament is the sign of Isaac and Abraham.

      Gen 22:1  After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
      Gen 22:2  He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."

      So God "tests" Abraham and as a perfect picture of the coming sacrifice of God's only begotten Son (Yeshua - Jesus) God instructs Issac to go and sacrifice his son, Issac.  Where does he say to offer him?  On Moriah -- the exact location of the Temple Mount.

      ...read more
      • 20 replies
×
×
  • Create New...