Actually, I'm not. Others are arguing that it is non-Constitutional, and I'm saying: "I'm not so sure about that".
I can see where it could be argued in court that it has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. That it has more to do with the "general health and welfare" of the populace, than it does with the 1st amendment.
It's always easy to say... "Oh that falls under the 1st amendment", when in actuality the 1st amendment is totally silent about the issue.
Maybe folks need to read this...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_ConstitutionNotice that it took only 100 days to ratify the 26th amendment, and that after 97 years, the Equal Rights Amendment still hasn't been ratified.
The constitution, and it's amendments are not as cut and dry as most people think.
If for some reason 'signs in different languages in the US ever came to be viewed as not considerate of the "general health and welfare" of the US, it wouldn't take a heartbeat before we had a new amendment. And that doesn't even include some court ruling that may come down, considering the interpretation of the 1st amendment concerning fixed/permanent signs in public places.
I mean, wouldn't you think that the 1st amendment would apply to things like Civil War statues, or lists of the Ten Commandments on the outside of public buildings?
So, I'm going to stick with what I said the the OP. I think that law that China passed is a 'good thing', for reasons I've stated in this topic. (Keeping in mind that they are a totally different country)
In the US, I think a similar law/amendment/ruling, would also be a good thing, excepting maybe the altering of buildings.
In the US, there should be no permanent signs that I for one, can't read.
Oh right. That's what I thought I said.