RC>regards to Rush's show and other media: the "right of free
RC>speech" in no way includes a "right of free hearing". 
 
      You are correct, it does not.  Any individual is free to speak as
they may choose, but just as no individual should be compelled to speak
in a manner they choose not to, no other individual ought be required
to listen to them.  It's a two way street.  If you require an
individual to speak in a given language, thereby limiting their freedom
of speech, you are doing the same a forcing someone to listen to a
specific language.
       The exception to this, of course, is in matters of government,
where the onus is upon government to perform it's intended function
which is to serve the people.  This, IMHO, includes all the people, not
merely those government employees find it more convienent to
communicate with.  As representatives and servants of the people, it
shoudl be the responsibility of government, not the people, to
communicate in the manner the people desire otherwise we place the
individual in the position of being subordinate to their government
that, as it should be, the opposite.
 
RC>You are then misinterpreting the First Amendment - the
RC>decision of the government to function in a single language
RC>in no way limits anyone's freedom of speech. 
  
      I disagree.  If you are required, by government, to speak a
specific language you are not accustomed to speaking, in order to
communicate with the government that claims represent you, you are not
being represented and are being denied access to your own government.
It is not the master that ought meet the requirements of the servant,
but the servant that ought meet the needs of the master.
RC>Example: please provide the date and case in which the
RC>Supreme Court heard any case in any language other than
RC>English.
  
      Not aware of any, but, again, that is a matter of convience IMHO.
I would imagine that in cases where participants speak differing
languages, translators are provided to asure that all participants are
aware of the proceedings.  This preference for English, however, n\may
not be consistant with all federal courts.  I would not be the least
surprised to find federal courts conducting business in Spanish in
Puerto Rico for instance.  In any event, since government at all levels
is the servant of the people, I would suggest the appropiate language
ought be determined only by the majortiy, or plurality, of participants
with translators provided for those who need them.
MA> Constitutional authority cannot be constitutionally
MA> exercised by an unconstitutional act.
RC>Huh? Translation please?
 
     Each subsequent amendment to the constitution, where applicable,
negates any previous powers granted in the consitution.  If, for
instance, the consitution grants a power to raise an army int he body
of the Consitution, but in a later amendment prohibits involuntary
servitude except as punnishment for a crime, then the power to raise an
army ought be limited to volunteers since involuntary conscription into
military service is prohibited by that later amendment.
     Unfortunately both social liberals and contemporary conservatives
have a tendency to circumvent consitutional barriers in order to
achieve desired ends.
 
RC>The decision of the government to function in only the
RC>single language of the majority in no way limits anyone's
RC>right of free speech. Whether it limits a nonexistent
RC>"right to be heard" is a moot point. 
 
        If the majority in the United States should one day speak
Spanish, which is a possibility, then I would suggest those who cannot
speak Spanish, should this government decide to conduct all business in
Spanish, will be unable to communicate with their servants, therefore
denied freedom to communicate with their own government.  The same is
true today for those Americans who are not fluent in English.
        We do not really know what the future will bring nor do we know
when we will find the shoe on the other foot.  I think it wise for us
all to require government serve all our citizens if not for the simple
reason that it should as a representative government, then simply
because we ourselves may one day find ourselves suffering the same
exclusionary policies that some today seek to impose upon others.
  
                                         /\/\ike
--- RBBSMail/386 v0.997
---------------