Discussion for article #229961
the 17 last months
This is an AP article so TPM can’t be held accountable, and it is quite likely that the author is not a native speaker of English, but this violates a basic rule of English grammar.
Ordinals (first, second, last, next, previous, etc.) and cardinal numbers are post-determiners and follow the determiner(s) but precede the pre-modifiers (adjectives) in a noun phrase. Ordinals precede cardinal numbers: “the first ten names”, “his first good book sold well; his previous nine books did not”.
It is sad that TPM has slipped from being a center for political analysis and devolved into a site for teaching English style and grammar through the exposure of flagrant solecisms.
1 Like
The Arizona Ordinals, a minor league team no doubt 
4 Likes
On the ballot here in AZ there was an initiative placed on the ballot by the Legislature to change the AZ Constitution. What the republicans (they have the majority in both state houses and have had them for 44+ years) wanted was for our state Constitution to trump the US Constitution so that if they felt federal officers (read Obama) did something they construed as unconstitutional they wouldn’t have to participate. State sovereignty was the issue. And the initiative was worded vaguely such that one was not sure what was the correct vote.
When last I checked the issue was not decided as the vote was very close. But it looks like The good judge has ended the issue.
Edit:
The issue is not decided:
From Huffington Post
Arizona
Proposition 122 - Rejection of Unconstitutional Federal Actions. Creates mechanism by which use of
state personnel and financial resources are employed only for purposes congruent with Constitution.
100% reporting
Yes
651,512
51.2%
No
620,929
48.8%
A no vote would have the effect keeping the law as it is (Us Constitution trumps all)
2 Likes
I could be wrong but shouldn’t it be: “…is not a native English speaker”?
Frank, AP or not, if bad grammar offends you (it offends me) then you need a bottle of wine before venturing into this site. You will not leave here unscathed.
The writers couldn’t pass my high school freshman class. There are no editors, and the people don’t even re-read what they have written before posting. They don’t even have basic knowledge concerning use of spell check.
1 Like
Nullification laws are, on their face, unconstitutional.
2 Likes
Bad grammar makes me [sic].
Indeed. Among other things, I do English language revision for non-native speakers so coming to TPM is like a busman’s holiday.
1 Like
Judging by the author’s name, he is French (Not sure if from France or Quebec) and in French one says “les 17 derniers mois.” This is by way of explanation, not excuse.
Of course they are. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, at least that is what Article 6 of that document says. “This Constitution and the Laws of the United states which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States. shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” This seems abundantly clear to me. But then I suspect nobody in the AZ legislature ever read that part.
6 Likes
See Constitution, US, Art. VI, second paragraph. So is the new, all GOP led Congress going to read the entire Constitution the first time they meet in session like they did the last time, and are they actually going to understand its meaning for a change?
This article was about an immigrant smuggling law in Arizona, not the US Congress. My point was that there was a motion in the AZ Legislature that they wanted voters here to pass or reject concerning state sovereignty which is the reason for the law. The Congress, the House specifically, has refused to address this issue of immigration. Obama (whom I support) has said he will act if they won’t.