This is about a state issued drivers license.

I think the 10th amendment gives the states the right to determine how they administer a drivers test.

It is a public safety issue and the first amendment does not allow the safety of the public to be compromised. IE. Yelling fire in a theater.

the tenth amendment is not in play when it comes to violating free speech or equal due process. if the tenth ruled in every case the southern states would still be segregated and abortion could be banned in some states, etc. although the courts have ruled that mandated english is legal in the workplace, IN VERY LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES, federal courts have ruled against mandated english in conducting government buisness as both unconstitutional, first and fifth amendments, and in violation of the 1964 civil rights act.

SOD rocked and still do.

Show me where the 10th amendment does not apply when the 1st amendment or equal due process is in question.

No. There are lots of whites who don't speak English. Do you think all white people speak English and all non-whites don't speak English?

That's talking about how we are treated in court, it doesn't mean that we have to perform drivers exams in 12 different languages.

how have the courts ruled that 'other' languages should be determined,,,?

Do I Have to do business if I dont understand the customer?

Do I have to add literature, advertisement, opportunities in a different language whenever a consumer or customer does not understand me?

Not racist. I came here from China and learned to speak the language before I left because I knew I was coming to an english speaking country. If I had wanted to immigrate to to France I would have learned french.

It is not racist to expect immigrants to integrate with their new nation, in fact I think it is a little backwards and ungrateful of an immigrant to America to not want to learn english

easy one. roe v wade.

talking about alot more than how we're treated in court. again, roe v wade, segregation laws, voting rights, etc., all were upheld on the basis of equal due process. and of course the states cannot abridge freedom of speech any more than the federal government can. numerous rulings have found that 'congress shall make no law' applies to any government entity. this from the fourteenth amendment:

talking about alot more than how we're treated in court. again, roe v wade, segregation laws, voting rights, etc., all were upheld on the basis of equal due process. and of course the states cannot abridge freedom of speech any more than the federal government can. numerous rulings have found that 'congress shall make no law' applies to any government entity. this from the fourteenth amendment:

talks about alot more than how we're treated in court. this from the fourteenth amendment:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

in 2001 a federal distict court judge ruled against utah's 'english as official language' law.

"In his decision, Judge Ronald Nehring acknowledged that any statute requiring routine government business to be exclusively in English would put the government in an unconstitutional straitjacket, trampling the rights of language minorities."

In previous posts you alluded to "Freedom of Speech." It means you can damn near say anything and not be imprisoned for it like completely disagreeing with elected officials. It does not specify that any language is good here. The language and law of the land are written in English. I think you are twisting the intent of the amendments you spoke of to suit your argument. Also Judge Ronald Nehring is like a lot of current justices reinterpreting the laws and constitution to suit a liberal agenda. The fact is people living here need to learn English. Ever hear the term "Ignorance of the law is no excuse?" I had that used against me a lot for laws I never knew existed.

Sorry but it is one thing for a visitor to this country to not speak the language but it has been a part of naturalization for ALL Immigrants to learn English as part of naturalization.

Too many Justices are stepping beyond their authority making calls like this in legal claims. If you want to live in Mexico you need to learn Spanish. Well, learn English to live her and stop allowing Minority Causes to screw us up here. This whole concept of total accommodation is utter crap!

Roe v Wade was an incredibly bad ruling and should be overturned. The only reason it hasn't is because of stare decisis and the courts being packed with abortion supporters.

well you asked for an example of where the tenth amendment does not apply. that you don't agree with the ruling has no bearing on the issue. there are many instances where the tenth amendment has no effect and not just court rulings. voting rights act, civil rights acts, etc., all abolished numerous state laws.

No, it's not. It is anti illegal immigration.

i'm not a federal judge nor do i question a court ruling. it is what it is. nobody on a dating site forum can change what it is. that takes a higher court until it finally is decided, if ever, on stage with the supremes. i've answered a few questions here. i don't interpret what the constitution says simply because it wouldn't matter how i interpreted it. i simply read the damn thing along with many, many court decisions regarding the parchment. it's simply a hobby of mine. a serious hobby but a hobby nonetheless. you folks may ar may not be better informed on this topic than i am. if so that's fantastic. but my take on requiring english only in conducting government business is that such legislation will have a tough row to how constitutionally speaking. if you think there are no constitutional issues based on the first amendment protection of free speech or the fifth and fourteenth guarantee of equal due process then fine, you've come to a position different than i have. but what you and i think is of little or no consequence. article three gave sole power to the federal judiciary to rule on constitutional issues. i simply pointed out a few examples where they've done just that as i was asked to do. perhaps you have an example that might go toward changing my point of view. but saying what you think of this ruling or that ruling or what you think the first or fifth amendment means won't go far in doing that.

I didn't ask that question, someone else did. I was simply pointing out that Roe v Wade is bad law. Any law created by the courts is bad law, regardless of who it benefits.