Answer to Question 1
e
Answer to Question 2
Freedom of speech
The court held that the state constitutional provision establishing English as the official language for state employees was invalid because it was overbroad and gave rise to sub-stantial potential for inhibiting constitutionally protected free speech rights. The court stated that Article XXVIII, by its literal wording, is capable of reaching expression protected by the First Amendment, such as Gutierrez's a co-plaintiff's right to communicate in Spanish with his Spanish-speaking constituents. To determine whether the Article XXVIII reached a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct, the court had to first interpret the meaning of Article XXVIII. The plaintiffs (Yniguez and others) claimed that it was a blanket prohibition on the use of any language other than English in the state workplace. The defendants, however, considered the article to be merely a directive for state and local governmental entities to act in English when acting in their sovereign capacities. The court held that the article's plain language indicated that with limited exceptions, the article prohibited the use of any language other than English by all officers and employees of all political subdivisions in Arizona while performing their official duties. Given this interpretation, the court concluded that there is a realistic danger of, and a substantial potential for, the unconstitutional application of Article XXVIII. The article was therefore voided by the court.
Cnidarians have specialized stinging cells called cnidocytes
Photograph of the flea that transmits Yersinia pestis to cause bubonic plague, called the oriental r
Major trunk lines carrying long-distance traffic crisscrossed the area east of the Mississippi. The
Country of Birth of Authorized U.S. Immigrants
Regular diesel fuel on the left has a clear or greenish tint, whereas fuel for off-road use is ...
A square matrix P is called a permutation matrix if each row and column of P contains exactly ...