Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 October 6

< Wikipedia:Reference desk‎ | Archives‎ | Humanities
Humanities desk
< October 5 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 7 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


October 6 edit

Question about an amendment that strips the US Senate of all of its powers edit

The US Constitution explicitly states in Article V that no US state will be stripped of its equal representation in the US Senate without its consent. However, what if there will be a new US constitutional amendment that would keep the US Senate intact as well as the US Senate's structure of two US Senators for each and every US state but nevertheless transfer all of the US Senate's powers (such as helping to pass legislation and ratifying treaties) to the US House of Representatives? So, basically, the US Senate will remain intact--as will its structure--but it will become completely or almost completely powerless, similar to the current British House of Lords, I suppose. Can such a change to the US Constitution be accomplished through the regular US constitutional amendment process or would such a change require the unanimous consent of all US states?

I mean, on the one hand, the US Constitution does not explicitly make the US Senate's powers unamendable; on the other hand, though, one can't help but wonder whether the US Senate's powers are implicitly unamendable as a part of the explicit unamendability of the two-US-Senators-per-US-state rule (unless of course all US states actually consent to this, which is extremely unlikely). A US Senate stripped of all or almost all its powers would deprive small US states of a federal US legislative chamber where they have a disproportionate say and influence in the making of United States public policy, after all. Futurist110 (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you seen such an idea? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here: https://jeremysheff.com/2018/10/17/article-v-the-senate-and-the-house-of-lords-option/ Futurist110 (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever that character is, he lacks a basic understanding of how the USA was formed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Futurist110 (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall having a similar discussion some weeks or months ago. Suffice it to say that the general understanding is that, provided the Amendment process in Article Five of the United States Constitution is obeyed, any part of the Constitution may be amended in any way. This includes Article Five itself, the Amendment process itself, and the portions of the Constitution that Article Five treats as so-called "entrenched clauses". The entire Senate can be abolished by Amendment, and indeed, the entire Constitution may be replaced by... basically anything provided the Amendment process is followed. This would be "legal" within the scope of U.S. constitutional law. Really, consider the structural changes that flow from the Eleventh, Twelfth, Seventeenth (in particular), Twentieth, Section 2 of the Twenty-first, and Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution. Those were all valid Amendments no matter how significantly they upset the structure of the Federal government or federalism within the United States. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, though, that Article V is quite specific that no US state may be stripped of its equal representation in the US Senate without its consent. The question is, does it implicitly go further and forbid any reduction in the powers of the US Senate without the consent of all US states? What do you think? Futurist110 (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a constitional prohibition is implied, should this ever come to pass, will be a matter for the Supreme Court to mull over.  --Lambiam 11:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's worth remembering that as our article says Article Five of the United States Constitution#Constitutional clauses shielded from amendment, whether the Article Five provision requiring the consent of affected states for amendments which affect their equal representation can itself be amended without requiring the consent of all states is disputed with a common view being that it can especially since it makes no attempt to entrench itself Entrenched clause#United States. But since this itself is disputed and is only likely to be resolved by it actually happening, more obscure questions like whether you could make a Senate who's only purpose is to vote on which turkey to pardon at Thanksgiving while making a Senit which takes over the functions of the Senate but only gives one Senitor each to Alaska and Hawaii, is not something anyone can answer with any definiteness although possibly some people have offered their views. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, the Senate could be contracted to 50, or expanded to 150, as long as each state retains its equality in the Senate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In case that was intended as a response to my reply, yes I did neglect to include the part about giving two or more Senitors to the other states, apologies Nil Einne (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What gives you the idea that any state would willingly give up its equal representation in the Senate and/or water down the Senate's authority? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Liberal US states might agree to this as a matter of justice and fairness. Futurist110 (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where have you seen anything that suggests any state is interested in doing this? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a matter of semantic and clearly not being English my first language, but I see in this phrasing something of a catch: "no US state may be stripped of its equal representation in the US Senate without its consent" means for me that as long as its 'representation' remains equal to that of all other states it has no fixed scope, and if you succeed in limiting the power of all representations in the same measure at the same time, you can strip all power from them without infringement of Article V. What the letter of Article V seems to protect is the equality of the representation, not the representation itself or any power tied to that representation. 2003:F5:6F0E:4500:3D1B:A8CB:F3B2:4524 (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC) Marco PB[reply]
The idea was to provide a forum in which small states had an equal voice with big states. If you take away the authority of the Senate, then that premise no longer works. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking, though, they would still have a forum--just a powerless forum. Futurist110 (talk) 07:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why it won't happen. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In 1987 Hendrik Hertzberg wrote in The New Republic this proposal: "The Senate shall be composed of one member from each State and an equal number of members chosen at large by single transferable vote." This would preserve equal representation (though the transition would be tricky) while making the Senate more proportional and more diverse. —Tamfang (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the claim that it would "preserve equal representation" is debatable at best. I don't suggest debating it here, though. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British ladies named Feodorowna edit

Reading a biography of Anthony Blunt, I came across one Feodorowna Cecilia Wellesley (1838-1920), Viscountess Bertie of Thame, wife of Francis Bertie, 1st Viscount Bertie of Thame. (Her page in The Peerage).

Feodorovna is a Russian patronymic, meaning "daughter of Feodor", and patronymics are never used as given names, but sit between the given name and the surname.

While searching for some information about her curious name, I also found another case: Feodorowna Philippa Yorke (1864-1934).

I'm wondering whether these very British ladies were named after some notable Russian woman with the Feodorovna patronymic. Maria Feodorovna (Dagmar of Denmark) might be a candidate for the second case, but she was born 9 years after the first case. But why wouldn't Dagmar/Maria's given name rather than her patronymic have been the name that was honoured in this way? It would be like naming your son Nikolayevich in honour of Leo Tolstoy.-- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Feodorovna (Sophie Dorothea of Württemberg) died in 1828. DuncanHill (talk) 02:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She was born as the daughter of a certain Friedrich, not Theodor, so why did they (the Russian Orthodox Church?) give her a Fyodor-derived patronymic?  --Lambiam 10:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. They did the same with the wives of Nicholas I of Russia (Alexandra Feodorovna, originally Charlotte of Prussia) and Nicholas II of Russia (Alexandra Feodorovna, originally Alix of Hesse), and maybe others. I think it had to do with having a consort with a Russian-sounding patronymic being considered more suitable. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Feodorovna was used for female converts to Russian Orthodoxy marrying into the Romanov family in honour of the Feodorovskaya Icon of the Mother of God, the patron icon of the Romanovs. DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Who'd have thunk that a family could have a patron icon? Do you have a reference for this? – then we can add it to the article on the icon and add some links.  --Lambiam 23:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No reference that we could really use - it's mentioned at Talk:Patronymic#Tsarinas_named_Feodorovna, and in a Quora thread here. Following the links from those I found Feodor Abramovich Lopukhin who was called Hilarion, but his name was changed to Feodor on becoming the Tsar's father-in-law. DuncanHill (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Feodorowna Philippa Yorke was the daughter of Sophia Georgiana Robertina Wellesley, the younger sister of Feodorowna Cecilia Wellesley, and was most likely named for her maternal aunt. The Peerage website says that the father of the two Wellesley sisters, the 1st Earl Cowley, was at the time of their births the Secretary of Legation of Stuttgart. This does give a possible link to Maria Feodorovna, née Sophie Dorothea of Württemberg. 58.6.214.57 (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This work is giving Feodorowna for a niece of Victoria, but the only i find that does. fiveby(zero) 00:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that search result is her mother, also a Feodora. Note that we call both mother and daughter "Feodora", not "Feodorowna". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, the half-sister not a niece, often "Anna Feodorowna", and not nearly so very British as your Wellesley. fiveby(zero) 14:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Lady Feodore Wellesley" also seems common. This article refers to her as both Feodore and Feodorowna. fiveby(zero) 00:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before this gets archived, I thank those who assisted me in my so-far fruitless quest. We may have to track down a family biography of the Wellesleys, if such a beast exists, to discover what was in the parents' minds when they named their daughters Feodorowna. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Law, Journalism) Journals' liability in publishing "lies" on Trump edit

Some fellow Hebrew-Wiki editors and I have been having an argument over the NYTime's credibility in exposing Trump's tax avoidance and chronic losses. I argued that the Times' article is trustworthy because, among other things, it could be sued for defamation if its claims turn out to be false. Another Wikipedian dismissed this argument, saying Trump couldn't sue them even if they lied, because that would force him to publicly disclose his taxes, which for whatever reason he refuses.

  1. Can Trump sue the Times without publicly disclosing his taxes?
  2. If so, could he do it without publicly addmitting that the trial is taking place behind closed doors specifically to avoid disclosure?
  3. Regardless, is there a reason he can't/won't sue them after his last term?
  4. What other mechanisms can he use against defamation when a lawsuit is infeasible?

On behaf of the entire Hebrew-Wiki community, Thanks! Veritas94 (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is America. Anyone can sue anyone about anything. Whether he will sue requires a crystal ball, which Wikipedia does not possess. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So my understanding of your discussion is that the threat of a defamation lawsuit means the NYT story has credibility. There are two reasons why this is a bit mistaken, both requiring an understanding of libel law in the United States. First, it is not the case that Trump could sue simply because the information is incorrect: As a public figure, Trump would need to demonstrate in court that the NY Times published the false story with actual malice, which is a very, very high bar. Secondly, as the other Wikipedian points out, it's very likely that Trump would need to disclose his tax returns in discovery. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that they would be public as a result; confidential discovery is possible, but it's the exception, and there would be numerous third-party motions filed very quickly demanding the release of the records, and it's very likely the court would find it in the public interest that the discovery records be open to public inspection. In short, it would be strategically fatal for Trump to sue.
A third point (or perhaps a rephrasing of the second point) would also be to refer to the Streisand effect, which to my understanding plays a major role in why politicians very rarely sue newspapers nowadays. It's much, much more beneficial to the politicians and their campaigns for negative press to just get ignored or forgotten (like most negative press is). The cost of litigation, as well, would be tremendous. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And to give point-by-point responses to your questions:
  1. Theoretically, yes. In practice, I doubt it.
  2. I don't understand the question. If you're asking whether the entire proceeding could be subject to a protective order, then no. With exceptions for certain sensitive criminal, juvenile, or national security-related litigation, the presumption in the United States is that litigation is a public affair and that it's in the public's interest to know what's taking place and have access to the proceedings.
  3. The actual malice issue is too high a bar to make it worthwhile, the negative publicity of any lawsuit would be worse than just letting everyone forget about the story, and it's unlikely that a victory would remedy any damage in any meaningful way. Additionally, the statute of limitations on a lot of the grievances are likely to have passed by the time he's out of office.
  4. In terms of legally legitimate actions, pretty much just a PR campaign against the publication: Call it fake news, attack the credibility of the publication generally, call on his supporters to cancel their subscriptions if they haven't already, encourage other publications to publish attacks on the other journal, etc. In terms of illegitimate or illegal actions, the sky's the limit.
While I can't predict with certainty that Trump won't sue the Times or any other newspaper, I think it's extremely unlikely to happen. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I understand that some of the Times' claims would be very hard to sue for, even if false. I also accept that politicians are disincentivized from suing even when warranted (although, for the record, in early 2020 the Trump campaign did sue The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN for alleged defamation.[1][2] Still, according to his en-wiki article, these lawsuits lacked merit and were not likely to succeed,[3][4] and were merely designed to intimidate journalists and the press.[3][4] So I'm not sure it helps our discussion). Anyway, 3 follow up questions, assuming the Times is complicit of actual malice and can be reasonably be expected to lose a lawsuit:
  1. Can someone other than Trump sue? Who? What about after his death (heaven forbid)?
  2. What's the statute of limitations for defamation against a politician like Trump?
  3. I've looked at cases like New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Westmoreland v. CBS, and Sharon v. Time, but they're quite different from the case we're discussing. Can you recommend other similar precidents?
Thank you, Veritas94 (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I wasn't aware of those cases. I don't know if they've been dismissed. I think the impression that they're more strategic than meritorious is probably correct, though I won't claim the campaign or their lawyers are bringing them without any proper purpose in mind. To respond to your follow-ups:
  1. Generally not. If he were to die and the cause of action were not extinguished by his death, his estate could pursue a cause of action on his behalf. But other than that, only he'd have standing to sue.
  2. The fact that Trump's a politician is irrelevant. The statute of limitations would depend on the state where he filed suit, which may involve some interesting conflict of laws issues. See Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.
  3. I'm not terribly familiar with defamation, it's not my wheelhouse by any means. The Keeton case I mention above is only because I'm something of a procedure wonk. And in that vein, Calder v. Jones stands out in my head as another defamation case. But neither Calder nor Keeton touch the merits of defamation. Part of the issue is that I think you're looking for SCOTUS or federal caselaw when there is no federal defamation law. It's all a state law matter, and when defamation cases are brought in federal court it's under diversity jurisdiction, where the plaintiff wants to sue the defendant under state law in a federal forum. And in case you're going to ask, in what state Trump could or would sue, and which state's law would govern, I have no idea. It doesn't have to be where either the publisher or he is based. See Keeton.
If you're curious about American defamation law in general, I'd honestly just advise reading a legal encyclopedia like American Jurisprudence or Corpus Juris Secundum, which should give you the general elements and an idea of what the majority rules are. And if you're very curious, I'd suggest looking for the Restatement of Torts, Second. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of any possible legal liability, if the publications turn out to be based on falsified documents, this will be a major blow to the credibility of the NYT. I should think they are well aware of the Killian documents controversy. When these documents proved to be forgeries (or at least could not be authenticated), it was a catastrophe for CBS that ended the career of Dan Rather, their top news anchor.
  1. ^ Folkenflik, David (March 3, 2020). "Trump 2020 Sues 'Washington Post,' Days After 'N.Y. Times' Defamation Suit". NPR.
  2. ^ Flood, Brian; Singman, Brooke (March 6, 2020). "Trump campaign sues CNN over 'false and defamatory' statements, seeks millions in damages". Fox News.
  3. ^ a b Geltzer, Joshua A.; Katyal, Neal K. (March 11, 2020). "The True Danger of the Trump Campaign's Defamation Lawsuits". The Atlantic. Retrieved October 1, 2020.
  4. ^ a b Wise, Justin (March 8, 2020). "Trump escalates fight against press with libel lawsuits". The Hill. Retrieved October 1, 2020.

Herbert Macaulay - moved from Science Desk edit

I have moved the following thread from the Science Desk, as it seems more of a Humanities question. DuncanHill (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who was Sir Herbert Macauly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.43.130 (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Herbert Macaulay but I don't know if he was ever knighted — the article certainly doesn't mention it if he was. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This WP:RS [1] suggests he was indeed knighted, so the article needs improving: I have made that comment on its talk page. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how reliable that is. I can't find anything else saying he was knighted, and while I only have snippet view of the Dictionary of African Historical Biography referred to in that article, what I can see does not call him Sir. DuncanHill (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the Life History of Herbert Macaulay, C. E. by Isaac B Thomas seems to call him Mr. It's possible a Harvard Divine has mistaken the meaning of the postnominals. DuncanHill (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or that it was an honorary knighthood without entitlement to the "Sir" prefix? Bazza (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He was a British subject, so it wouldn't have been honorary. He still doesn't have the postnominals of an honorary knight. DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He was debarred from elected office because of a fraud conviction and was regularly in conflict with the colonial authorities (not necessarily a bad thing in retrospect); he doesn't really seem to have been knighthood material. Alansplodge (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've now done a text search for Macauly at the London Gazette "here".. Fortunately, the surname is uncommon and what hits there are confirm Herbert Macauly was never knighted, nor given any other of the awards for which the Gazette is the master record. That doesn't fully explain what the other sources said but that's another question. I'll copy this to the Talk Page. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Human error. There are 12,900 ghits for "Sir Benjamin Britten". Trouble is, he was never knighted. He was made a life peer as Baron Britten of Aldeburgh, but was never Sir Benjamin Britten. See, Google finds things that are true and also things that are not true. Your job is to know, or discover, which are which. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why health related taxes aren't 0% if people need to be alive to pay taxes? edit

The idea of taxation is because if you are going to have an state instead of anarchist land, this state need money to exist and you get them with taxes.

My question is, assuming the exact reason of taxes existing is the fact a state need money to run (and taxes are how you get that money), why the health related taxes aren't EXACT 0%?

To someone pay taxes, this person need to be alive, and making health tax not be 0% makes health related stuff more expensive because of it and makes harder to this people continue to be alive.

Of course you can get some part of someone money when they die, or some part of someone money when they try to get money from a family member that died, but that will only happen once per person, while a person that is alive will pay taxes over and over and over.2804:7F2:594:E83B:8004:CD1B:1D25:19D0 (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you (somewhat cynically) only look at the bottom line, the state will collect more money from the exacted taxes than they miss out from people dying earlier because they could not afford paying for health care. Since these people were apparently poor, the state could not have collected much taxes from them anyway. For the rest it's a bit like a "your money or your life" situation. Your argument (which I think is flawed) could be extended to all taxes, since their imposition can mean people have no money left to take care of themselves. But in general, in parasitic relationships, the parasite imposes a burden that is not so heavy that its victim succumbs.
I think, however, that there is another, worse flaw, which is in the premise that health related taxes make access to health care more difficult. In reality, they are used to subsidize health care for people who could not otherwise afford it.  --Lambiam 23:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Living in Ontario, Canada, I pay a certain dollar amount each year (the amount depends on my income and could be zero if I was poor enogh) to OHIP for health care. There is no option to refuse paying and stay out of the system: it's just part of the income tax system. But (with certain exceptions that OHIP does not cover), I pay nothing to actually use the health services. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean by "health related taxes"? Iapetus (talk) 08:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the OP is referring to VAT/GST on health services and maybe also stuff like company tax on health care companies, income tax on health professionals etc. Note that some countries do exempt or zero-rate or offered reduced VAT rates for healthcare related services and products. Indeed it sounds like this applies even to Brazil to some extent although it's complex [2]. Of course the costs arising from such complexity tends to be one of the arguments against such exempting or zero-rating or reduced rates. And in general, many of the arguments against such variances will also apply to the healthcare sector. E.g. should such varaicnes apply to medicines often considered less essential like viagra or cialis? What about to botox or other forms of cosmetic surgery like breast implants? If the answer is no, then what about those who e.g. want breast implants because they are transgender or had masectomies due to breast cancer? And how does this tally with how you treat other stuff e.g. mobile phones? Mobile phones can be essential to some people's work nowadays. They can also be tools to improves a deaf person's involvement in society. Food is essential just like health care right? But is 10,000 real caviar essential? Etc etc. Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First... you DON’T actually have to be alive to pay taxes. Any tax you owe when you die is still owed, it simply has to be paid by your estate. Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of those taxes is to ensure everyone gets health services. Suppose some people need a $10,000 lifesaving operation. One person could have $50,000, pay up and be left with $40,000. Another might have a million, pay for the operation and be almost not worse off with $990,000. A third person might never be able to scrounge up $10,000 and would die. The purpose of health taxes is to tax person 1 & 2 to pay for the treatment of person 3. More money is spent solely because more lives are saved. You could claim that the system doesn't work, that people fall thru cracks, or that someone might not be able to afford food after paying a health tax, but the reality is that those things happen rarely enough that on average it makes it a lot "easier" for people to continue to be alive, even in a garbage health system as exists in my country. 93.136.178.2 (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that a healthy society is a national security necessity, and an unhealthy society is a national security threat. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2020_October_6&oldid=983984390"