Ohio state university ngs Videos

Sorry guys this man is a Ram. Bradford to Gilyard sounds good to me.

If fluency is an issue you can remove it entirely but not with this amendment, not the way the new additions are written. If you do remove the fluency requirement you segregate the fluent speakers, the speech fluency requirements(Navajo and English) are there so that communication is possible to all members of the tribe, so that the voice of the people, Navajo and English speakers, can be heard. This amendment states that "this law may be applied retroactively...to all candidates meeting the 2014 candidacy filing deadline". This is unfair, you cannot go back and change the rules on everyone during an election of this magnitude, you just don't, if you do it's a violation of the rights of all participants(candidates). It's funny they mention the Sandoval v. NEA case. Because in that case after a candidate(Leo Johnson) was elected into office it's was revealed that he was found to be ineligible because he didn't meet a requirement set by NEA. Justice was swift in that matter as the newly elected official was deemed ineligible and was then disqualified. Why not be as swift in this case as it was was in the Sandoval v. NEA case. The only retroactive action taken in that case was the disqualification of the elected candidate, Leo Johnson. This amendment will only attract litigation from candidates no matter who wins, during, after and before anyone is sworn into office. A debate entirely in Navajo is what I suggest before amending this law, that will undoubtedly prove the fluency of each candidate. Ahxehee