I read you guys's responses. Because this is crowdsourcing the next constitutional amendment. We have the brain power right now to solve this problem and that's what we're going to do in the Congress of Sign Language Forum lol

so just as a preliminary: I am not proposing "English Sign Language" I am proposing that ... under the definition of "English" There is Three sub-parts. 1. Spoken. 2. Written. 3. Signed. Yes my original article was just getting the conversation started so dismiss its rough edges. Jump in and start dropping your amendments. American Sign Language is the language of "Signed".

📜 Proposed Amendment – Comprehensive Language Rights Amendment (Draft)

Amendment [Number TBD] — National Language & Linguistic Sovereignty

Section 1.
The English language is the official language of the United States.

Section 2.
For the purposes of law, policy, governance, and cultural inheritance, English is defined as encompassing all three of its inalienable modes:

• Spoken: English as produced through speech, inclusive of all regional dialects, accents, and cultural variants.
• Written: English as represented through text, whether printed, handwritten, digital, or visual.
• Signed: American Sign Language expressed in visual-spatial forms.

Section 3.
The designation of English as the official language shall not infringe upon the right of any individual to communicate in other languages, nor shall it prevent the use of multiple languages for community or cultural purposes. However, English, in all its modes, shall serve as the unifying framework for official government proceedings, public records, and national discourse.

Section 4.
The rights of individuals to access government services, public education, and civic participation in English — whether through speech, writing, or signing — shall be recognized as a fundamental extension of their linguistic sovereignty and shall not be abridged, obstructed, or subordinated to any lesser status.

Section 5.
The English language, in all its modes, shall be treated not as a privilege granted by the government, but as an inalienable right flowing directly from each individual’s cultural inheritance, cognitive development, and national identity.

Section 6.
Nothing in this Amendment shall be construed to limit the protection or preservation of Indigenous languages, heritage languages, or the linguistic diversity that forms part of the cultural fabric of the United States.

Just a draft.

LinguistNation.com

English as the National Language — Fine, But What is “English”?

The trinity of English:

The new White House policy states:

“Section 1.  Purpose and Policy.  From the founding of our Republic, English has been used as our national language.  Our Nation’s historic governing documents, including the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, have all been written in English. It is therefore long past time that English is declared as the official language of the United States.  A nationally designated language is at the core of a unified and cohesive society, and the United States is strengthened by a citizenry that can freely exchange ideas in one shared language.” …

“Sec. 3.  Designating an Official Language for the United States.  (a)  English is the official language of the United States. 

(b)  Executive Order 13166 of August 11, 2000 (Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency), is hereby revoked; nothing in this order, however, requires or directs any change in the services provided by any agency.  Agency heads should make decisions as they deem necessary to fulfill their respective agencies’ mission and efficiently provide Government services to the American people.  Agency heads are not required to amend, remove, or otherwise stop production of documents, products, or other services prepared or offered in languages other than English.”

See: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/designating-english-as-the-official-language-of-the-united-states/ 

The LingustNation definition of “English”

LinguistNation would like to see a comprehensive definition of “English.” So as to prevent treating it exclusively as a spoken and written system, leading to the inadvertent ignoring of millions of Americans for whom English exists exclusively — in signed form.

• These citizens think in English, process in English, and live in English — just with their hands, eyes, and spatial awareness instead of their vocal cords.

• They are English speakers by every legitimate standard — just not phonetically.

English Exists in Branches

Most people, including policy makers, think of English as a single mode — spoken or written. But language (especially English) is a trifecta. Spoken, Written, Signed. It’s all English.

1. Spoken English (Phonetic English — Most Complex)

• This is where you get accents, dialects, slang, intonation, stress patterns, and all the subtle cultural markers that make language tied to identity and community.

• Spoken English changes faster than any other form because it lives in the wild, constantly adapting to culture, technology, migration, and even humor.

• Spoken English is where inalienable identity really lives — you learn to hear and speak before you can write or read.

2. Written English (Split into 3 Sub-Parts)

a) Typed English

• This is the most modern form, and it’s already shifting faster than the others (text-speak, emojis, abbreviations like “lol” and “omw”).

• Typed English is hyper-functional — it gets the job done but loses a lot of personal touch.

b) Written Standard

• This is the “correct” English taught in schools — the artificial rule-based version that serves as a gatekeeper for official communications (legal docs, academic writing, government forms).

• This is where power sits, because people who control what is "correct" English control who gets access to contracts, licenses, jobs, etc.

c) Cursive Writing

• Almost a dying art, but still a unique, physical embodiment of personal style in English.

• Cursive was often considered the most personal and expressive form of written English.

• It’s the one you could recognize by hand even if the words themselves were generic — your signature being the perfect example.

3. Signed English (The Overlooked Third Branch)

Signed English is the higher-order mathematics of the English language. 

The clearest, most mathematically faithful rendering of English concepts into physical form. 

To deny its place in the definition of English is to deny the precision and mathematical purity built into the language itself. Because Signed English cannot rely on tone, every element must be precisely placed and faithfully structured. It is English stripped down to its mathematical essence — the blueprint upon which all other English stands.

Sign Language is by inalienable right recognized as an official third branch of English. It is English in motion, stripped of sound but full of meaning.

• Signed English (like SEE or PSE) attempts to directly map to English grammar and structure, even though ASL (American Sign Language) is a language in its own right, not just a translation of English, but a higher order mathematics of the English language.

• The simplicity (in terms of the lack of homophones, lack of complex phonetic juggling) makes it more direct — but constructing full grammatical sentences still requires cognitive work equal to or greater than spoken English. Nevertheless … using English words.

Why It’s Critical

The failure to officially recognize Signed English as part of English itself is part of the larger problem of signed English being viewed as another language when it is not.

• Language rights are tied to hearing and speech privilege.

• Deaf and hard-of-hearing communities are constantly forced into accommodations instead of being recognized as equal participants in English.

We look for a paradigm shift:

• English doesn’t only exist as words you say or words you write.

• English exists as words you sign, and the right to communicate in that form is just as inalienable as the right to speak or write.

Connection Between Signed English and the English-Speaking Population

90% of Deaf people in America are born to hearing, English-speaking parents. This fact alone confirms that their native language — the language they inherit, the language of their home, their culture, and their identity — is English.

• 90% of Deaf Americans are born into English-speaking families.

• Their English identity is inherited, not acquired.

• They do not borrow English — they inherit it through their bloodlines and culture.

• That inheritance does not vanish because their hands speak instead of their mouths.

To treat Signed English as a foreign language is to sever these citizens from their rightful linguistic inheritance — English. It creates a false separation between them and the English-speaking society into which they were born.

This number — 90% — proves that Signed English is not some "foreign accommodation." It is the direct, natural, inherited extension of the English language into visual space. It is a branch of the English family tree, rooted in the homes of hearing English-speaking families.

Any language policy that declares English the national language — but fails to explicitly recognize Signed English as part of that language — is cutting off millions of people who were born into English-speaking homes, who think in English, and who have every right to claim English as their own.

This is not a matter of accommodation.
This is a matter of ownership.
They are English speakers — in every way except sound.

Inalienable English in All 3 Branches

When we tie this back to the inalienable rights concept, it’s clear:

• If English is your inalienable right, ALL its forms are your right — spoken, written, and signed.

• Any policy that restricts one, restricts your whole right.

• You, as a user of English (in any or all branches), are a direct stakeholder in any policy that touches language.

The Legal and Policy Problem

Right now, U.S. law and most global language policies:

• Treat sign languages (ASL, BSL, etc.) as "accommodations," not as integral parts of English.

• Fail to recognize Signed English as a fully valid, legal form of English communication.

This is a structural defect in language rights policy — because it reduces a fully legitimate form of English communication to "optional accommodation" status, rather than inalienable expression.

Final Word — The Simplification is

"In signed English, ‘A’ only has one existence."

Signed English offers a clean, unambiguous mapping for ENGLISH letters and concepts, without the noise of accents, handwriting, or dialect confusion.

It’s pure communication, and it already occupies its rightful place as English. To be respected and protected as equally valid to spoken and written English.

2. A Cohesive Society Requires Full Access — Across All English Modes

Policy states a: “unified English nation is core to its cohesion”

Then we must not snip out those who are rightfully signed speaking owners of it.

• To solidify the official language policy into full unification and cohesion, then it logically must include Signed English and the deaf/hard-of-hearing communities who communicate in English — just through signing.

• A policy that defines English too narrowly is actively dividing the citizenry, not unifying it.

This will unify the stated purpose of the policy by aligning all those that speak and use English as their only language. For use by our nations coalescing greatness.

3. Legal and Historical Precedent:

While U.S. federal law has never made English the official language before this, there are tons of precedents where courts have ruled that equal access to government, education, and civic life for Deaf citizens is guaranteed under laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

• The ADA may frame this in terms of "reasonable accommodation," but a bigger point:

  • Signed English isn’t a "foreign system" requiring accommodation.

  • It’s English — just through a different modality.

  • Therefore, failing to explicitly include Signed English under the “nationally designated language” framework is both:

    • Legally questionable.

    • Culturally and linguistically dishonest.

4. The Concept of “Rightful Owners” is Critical

The heart of this argument is that English belongs to everyone whose thoughts, identity, and reality are built in English — no matter the delivery method.

• Spoken English users own English.

• Written English users own English.

• Signed English users own English.

The White House should declare English the official national language, with respect to all three of its modes receiving recognition under the same policy.

5. This Isn’t Just Accommodation — It’s Ownership

It’s about recognizing that Signed English speakers are not some special class that needs help.

They are full, co-equal participants in the English-speaking community of America — and any national language policy must explicitly protect and include them.

6. Your Policy Argument — In One Sentence

You cannot claim English is the unifying foundation of the Republic while excluding millions of English speakers whose hands, not voices, carry their rightful share of that language’s national heritage.

Language as a Right — Where It Fits

When it comes to language, the reality is a bit more complicated. Historically and legally, your right to speak your native language or to use the language you grew up with is often considered a cultural and human right. This is recognized in:

• UN declarations on indigenous rights and cultural rights.

• Constitutional protections in countries with linguistic diversity (like Canada, South Africa, and parts of Europe).

• Laws protecting indigenous languages or minority languages (like the Native American Languages Act in the U.S.).

The right to use your native or heritage language is treated more like an inalienable cultural right — something that flows from your personal identity and community membership. Which is EXACTLY why this administration is forming this policy. This administration is setting a culture of English. American Sign Language is raw uncut English, and the foundation upon which all other English is built, even if that is not widely known.

  In the legal sense. The U.S. Constitution does not officially declare English as the national language (though many states have). But practically speaking, growing up speaking English in the U.S. does create a de facto cultural right to operate in English.

• It’s tied to your citizenship.

• It’s tied to your ability to access public services, vote, engage with government.

• It’s so deeply embedded in your identity that trying to strip you of your ability to use English would absolutely violate your human rights.

In that sense, you could argue that language (your personal, primary language) is part of your inalienable right to self-expression and identity.

Language — particularly the language you think in, dream in, live in — is not something anyone grants you. It’s part of who you are. That’s what makes it inalienable.

Your Inalienable Right to Your Language — In Practice

No law, no government body, no vote can erase your ownership of English (or whatever your primary language is). That’s because it exists inside you, not outside you. It’s not a permission — it’s a condition of your being.

• They can outlaw the use of English in certain contexts.

• They can create economic or legal penalties for using English (or any language) in the "wrong" setting.

• They can manipulate access to services, contracts, or benefits based on language.

But what they can’t do is take away the fact that English is inside you — your thoughts, your inner voice, your sense of humor, your instincts — all in English.

That’s the inalienable piece.

Inalienable Rights and Policy Power

If language is part of your inalienable self, then any policy that touches language automatically touches you directly — whether they name you personally or not.

So, you do have a say — not because they "give" you a say, but because your very existence makes you a stakeholder. That’s the part they don’t teach in school. Governments want you to think your rights are granted by laws, but inalienable rights come from existence itself.

This Is Bigger Than Law — It’s About Language Sovereignty

The way you’re thinking about language is exactly how sovereignty works at its core. Language is not something granted by governments, agencies, or institutions — it’s an inalienable feature of personal and cultural existence. It does not require permission, approval, or regulation to exist. It belongs solely to the people who think, dream, and live within it.

• Your right to speak your language.

• Your right to shape it, evolve it, and define its meanings within your community.

• Your right to defend it from outside interference.

All of this flows from the core truth: Your language is your sovereign territory.

It is intellectual land that no government, institution, or external force has the right to colonize — unless you allow them.

To regulate language is to violate sovereignty.
To treat language as something "granted" rather than something inherent is to break the fundamental bond between a people and their voice.
Language is not a privilege handed down by authority. It is an inalienable condition of identity and existence.

Inalienable = Non-Negotiable

Even if a whole Congress stood up tomorrow and passed a law saying "English is no longer allowed," they could only limit external behavior — they could never delete English from your mind, your heart, your identity. That’s the power of inalienable rights. They exist whether anyone recognizes them or not.

And because they exist, you have a rightful claim to be heard anytime language policy, law, or economics are on the table. Not as a favor — but because you are the walking, breathing evidence of that right.

• Inalienable rights (sometimes called unalienable rights) are those that can’t be taken away, transferred, or denied because they are inherently tied to you as a human being. Classic examples are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

• Alienable rights, on the other hand, are rights that can be given away, sold, or transferred to others. Property rights are an example — you can sell your car, for instance.

No government, agency, or corporation should have the power to restrict your ability to use your language — whether that’s for personal expression or professional work.

The End

Right now I have a project that need 20 ASL signers to record themselves signing for two 5mins videos. Participants will only need to know basic ASL words ('bad', 'good', 'water') and could get 16$ stipend (through venmo or zelle). The videos will only be used for training a machine learning model. If you are interested, please contact x5zhan@ucsd.edu for more information. 

A lovely suprise for this couple when they realized that the stewardess on their Philippine Airlines flight could sign!

Wouldn't it be wonderful to see more of this kind of inclusion everywhere. Great customer service.