S 12644 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE It will allow transitional instruction In English for non-English-speaking students, but do away with requirements for foreign language instruction In other academic subjects; It will end the false promise being made to new minigrants that English is unnecessary for them. As Senator HAYAKAWA, my former colleagur. good friend, and prime leader in this important endeavor has stated. "Perhaps the fundamental purpose of the English language amendment is to preserve what our Pledge of Allegiance describes as "One nation. under God, indivisible.. I appreciate the opportunity to be a Joint sponsor of this constitutional amendment with my colleague, Senator HUDDLESTON and I commend him for his efforts and involvement. I look forward to a large bipartisan response and a growing national interest in this issue. September 21, 1983 I wholly support English Language Amendmen H.R., Resolution What about As an American of Chinese descent (and I speak the language) I woould like to have the English language legally recognized as the one and only official language of the United States. Sincerely, Helen Wong Jean Executive Secretary Though I am in the midst of a reelection campaign, I am already planning for major legislative moves in the next Congress. Protecting the English language from further erosion through appropriate legislation is high on my list of priorities for 1985. We have certainly come a long way since you first introduced the English Language Amendment in 1981. As I recall, few people realized that the English language enjoys no legal protection in our society, and many thought at first that declaring English the official language was redundent. I believe that your amendment, and the reintroduction of it last year in both Houses, has demonstrated that the protection of English is a serious political issue, and that some legislative action is needed if we are to retain our common language bond. We got as far as hearings on the ELA last June--despite election year politics that normally advise against taking on new controversies. This represents enormous progress in the development of the issue, and it has done a great deal to educate the press, the public, and our Congressional colleagues. The public discussions generated by the ELA have called attention to a further need for constitutional scholarship in the area of language law. We want to make sure that the language of the amendment is not so specific as to trivialize the Constitution, nor so broad as to cause potential First Amendment conflicts. In other words, we must now consult the best legal minds in the country in order to arrive at the best possible formulation for this amendment--or statutory legislation, if that seems indicated. Sam, U.S. English has been instrumental in advancing the cause of the English language bond, and I am hoping that your organization can secure the money necessary for a scholarly review of the issue. It would be extremely useful to commission several research papers from leading Constitutional scholars, to be followed by an academic seminar and publication of research papers. Such a course of action would allow us to proceed confidently, secure in the knowledge that we are protecting both our individual civil rights and our common language. The development of a formula for protecting English within the framework of indiviual civil rights guarantees would be a major contribution to the welfare of each and every one of us, and to generations of Americans yet to come. Here is an opportunity to make a truly historic gift to the nation, and I hope that it can be secured. Thank you for all your help. Please let me know if I can do anything further. I would be pleased to make whatever contacts may be useful. Best wishes, Singerely, Walter D. Huddleston Washington, D.C. 20540 Congressional Research Service LEGAL ANALYSIS OF S.J. RES. 167 PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO LEGAL ANALYSIS OF S.J. RES. 167 PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO On September 21, 1983, Senator Huddleston, for himself and several colleagues, introduced S.J. Res. 167, which would amend the U.S. Constitution to make English the "official language of the United States" and provide for legislative enforcement by Congress. The text of the proposed amendment reads: Section 1. The English language shall be the official language of the United States. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power The proposal would, by its terms, become part of the fundamental law of the land if ratified by three-fourths of the states within seven years of its submission by Congress. At the outset, it appears doubtful whether the section 1 declaration of English as the "official" language would, standing alone and without reference to 1/ the subsequent enforcement provision, have any practical legal effect. The wording of that section would not seem per se to mandate or prohibit anything, at least in the absence of legislative history elucidating a contrary intention on the part of Congress. Nor would the amendment necessarily imply the wholesale repeal or nullification of existing federal or state laws and regulations that 1/ At present, the closest analogy to federal recognition of English as an "official" language may be found in the naturalization laws which, with certain limited exceptions, require that to qualify for citizenship, the candidate must demonstrate 'an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language. . .' U.S.C. 1423. 8 require or permit the use of non-English for various purposes, la/ without postratification congressional action to that effect. In this regard, the measure may be contrasted with H.J. Res. 169, its House counterpart, which besides conferring official status on the English language, goes on to implement this declaration by explicitly prohibiting governmental policies requiring the use of language other than English. Thus, the practical force and effect of the amendment would seem largely to turn on exercise by the Congress of the power granted it in section 2 to enforce the article by "appropriate legislation." This enforcement language parallels that generally found in the Civil War 2/ Amendments to the Constitution which have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to grant "plenary" authority with Congress to "determin[e] whether and what legis needed to secure the [constitutional] guarantees. legislation", the congressional action need be "plainly adopted to the end" of enforcing the amendment and "not prohibited by, but.. consistent with the let 4/ 3/ To be "appropriate ter and the spirit of the Constitution. In applying this standard, the Court has adopted a "rational basis" test, requiring only that the legislation be "reasona ble" or "rational", and not arbitrary and capricious, when viewed against the 5/ legislative record. Accordingly, it appears that Congress would possess broad discretionary power under the amendment to determine what laws are appropriate to enforce the constitutional declaration of English as the official national language, even arguably to the point of requiring that English be used in certain settings. la/ See, e.g. 42 U.S.C. 1973 aa-la (bilingual election provisions of the Voting Rights Act); 8 U.S.C. 1224 (language interpreters to be used to examine alien immigrants); 28 U.S.C. 1827 (foreign language interpreters in federal court proceedings); 28 U.S.C. 1608 (translation of judicial process served on functionaries of foreign state); 42 U.S.C. 254b(f)(3)(J), 254c (use of foreign language personnel in federally funded migrant centers and alcohol and drug abuse programs). Enforcement of these and similar requirements, while susceptible of repeal or modification by affirmative act of Congress pursuant to section 2, would not seem impaired by section 1 of the amendment per se. Note also, however, that even without the amendment, Congress presumably would be empowered to amend or repeal these provisions, at least to the extent that they are grounded in legislative grace rather than constitutional imperative. 2/ See Articles XIII, XIV, and XV of the U.S. Constitution. 3/ Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641, 650 (1966). Also, South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966); City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156 (1980). 4/ 384 U.S. at 650-51. 5/ E.g., City of Rome (supra), Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980). |