DH> Thus the requirement to show some sort of ability to function in
DH> English. Mike, we are(at least for now) a republic, and the majority o
DH> the people speak English as a first language, if the majority were to
DH> support the rendering of government services in a language other than
DH> English, then we ought to do it, until then, the constitution is silen
DH> on the issue. Your attempt to make bilingualism a constitutional issue
DH> is the same sort of hocus pocus that the liberals are famous for.
 
      I see no constitutional authority for the federal government to
designate a language.  I do not make assumptions that a federal power
not specifically granted exists as either an expedient or an
implication of other powers granted, but prefer, instead, to rely upon
the specific powers granted.  If, by taking a position of strict
adherence to the constitution I am deemed a liberal, which I am, albeit
a classical liberal, then that is the badge I must wear.  I choose not
to grant federalists powers not clearly delegated to them.
DH> 
 MA> Constitutional authority cannot be constitutionally
 MA> exercised by an unconstitutional act.
 
     If a power is delegated, and then restrained by subsequent
amendment, exercise of that power in violation of that amendment
becomes an unconstitutional act.  Jefferson and many others feared
adoption of the Constitution without a Bill of Rights attached to
restrain the exercise of the powers granted.  This, IMHO, is an example
of the basis of their fears...
DH> 
 RC>Huh? Translation please?
 
     (oops...see above)
 MA> 
DH> Interesting comment. I do know this, conscription was limited to time
DH> of war, until the end of WWII, as to the constitutionality(or moral
DH> rightness) of conscription, I would have to give it some thought.
 
     Look closely at the 13th amendment.  Unless turning 18 is now a
crime, I see no constitutional means to invoke a military draft.
  
 
                                           /\/\ike
--- RBBSMail/386 v0.997
---------------