{"title":"Ruiz v. Hull: A Legal and Rhetorical Examination of “English-Only” Legislation","authors":"M. Cavanagh","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2014.888316","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The law in appellate opinions represents a conversation between appellate courts and their readers that impacts all of us in nearly every facet of our lives. The language in these opinions creates the legal relationships that shape our interactions with the government, and, more intimately, with each other. An examination of the language presented in these opinions can reveal the way language impacts our legal and social environment. The Supreme Court of Arizona, in Ruiz v. Hull, struck down as unconstitutional an amendment to the Arizona Constitution that required all state and local government business in Arizona to be conducted only in English. This paper examines the relationships created by this opinion, the keywords and phrases presented, and the reasoning held out as valid in order to develop a picture of the legal culture that emerges as a result.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":"48 1","pages":"81 - 96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2014.888316","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"First Amendment Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2014.888316","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
The law in appellate opinions represents a conversation between appellate courts and their readers that impacts all of us in nearly every facet of our lives. The language in these opinions creates the legal relationships that shape our interactions with the government, and, more intimately, with each other. An examination of the language presented in these opinions can reveal the way language impacts our legal and social environment. The Supreme Court of Arizona, in Ruiz v. Hull, struck down as unconstitutional an amendment to the Arizona Constitution that required all state and local government business in Arizona to be conducted only in English. This paper examines the relationships created by this opinion, the keywords and phrases presented, and the reasoning held out as valid in order to develop a picture of the legal culture that emerges as a result.
上诉意见书中的法律代表了上诉法院与其读者之间的对话，它几乎影响着我们生活的方方面面。这些意见中的语言创造了法律关系，这些关系塑造了我们与政府的互动，更密切的是，我们彼此之间的互动。对这些观点中的语言进行考察可以揭示语言影响我们的法律和社会环境的方式。亚利桑那州最高法院在Ruiz v. Hull案中否决了亚利桑那州宪法的一项修正案，该修正案要求亚利桑那州所有州和地方政府的事务只能用英语进行。本文考察了这一观点所产生的关系、提出的关键词和短语，以及提出的有效推理，以便形成一幅由此产生的法律文化的图景。
期刊介绍：
First Amendment Studies publishes original scholarship on all aspects of free speech and embraces the full range of critical, historical, empirical, and descriptive methodologies. First Amendment Studies welcomes scholarship addressing areas including but not limited to: • doctrinal analysis of international and national free speech law and legislation • rhetorical analysis of cases and judicial rhetoric • theoretical and cultural issues related to free speech • the role of free speech in a wide variety of contexts (e.g., organizations, popular culture, traditional and new media).
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
