Guest shiloh357 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 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 More sharing options...
Burning_Ember Posted February 10, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,009 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 100 Days Won: 3 Joined: 09/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted February 10, 2012 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 More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 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 More sharing options...
Burning_Ember Posted February 10, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,009 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 100 Days Won: 3 Joined: 09/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted February 10, 2012 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 More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 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 More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted February 10, 2012 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.87 Content Count: 43,795 Content Per Day: 6.20 Reputation: 11,243 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 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 More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted February 11, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted February 11, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 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. Isn't that the truth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted February 11, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.10 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted February 11, 2012 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. 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 More sharing options...
amor Posted February 11, 2012 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: 0.30 Reputation: 34 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/18/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted February 11, 2012 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts