Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2023 September 13

< Wikipedia:Reference desk‎ | Archives‎ | Humanities
Humanities desk
< September 12 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 14 >
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.


September 13

edit

Wording of United States Bill of Rights - "Congress shall make no law"

edit

The United States Bill of Rights contains 10 amendments. The first amendment begins with the phrase "Congress shall make no law". None of the other 9 amendments contain this wording. It seems to me that if all 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights are on equal footing, they should contain the same wording. Is there any significance to the first amendment saying "Congress shall make no law" but the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights do not say "Congress shall make no law"? Pealarther (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No dog in this fight (being British), but "if all 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights are on equal footing, they should contain the same [initial] wording" does not make any logical sense to me. Each amendment deals with a different, distinct matter; they are not a set of minor variations on the same topic. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.81.165 (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Textualism and originalism, a good starting point might be Hemel, Daniel J. (2013). "Executive Action and the First Amendment's First Word". Pepperdine Law Review. 40 (3). and the references therein. fiveby(zero) 14:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the other amendments contain the words "shall not", meaning that the things mentioned are absolutely forbidden. Several others use the word "shall", meaning that the things mentioned are absolutely required. The varied wording around the "shalls" and "shall nots" doesn't seem to indicate any difference of esteem between the various amendments, rather it simply serves to make reading the whole document less repetitive. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, not all amendments bind the same aspects of the nation; the first amendment applies to laws Congress may or may not pass (and by incorporation via the 14th amendment, state legislatures as well), while (for example) the fourth amendment applies to police power, not normally an action Congress takes, while the fifth, sixth, and seventh apply to the courts. --Jayron32 13:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are prominent arguments that the first amendment applies to laws Congress may or may not pass[1] sometimes derisively termed 'fundamentalist'[2] But understand and practice follows as Michael W. McConnell says The Supreme Court has never explicitly held that the Free Exercise Clause applies to executive action, though it has assumed on countless occasions that it does...The drafters' use of the term "Congress" was a result of two structural decisions: to limit the reach of the First Amendment (as well as other protections of personal rights in the first eight amendments) to the federal government, and to set forth these freedoms as a freestanding Bill of Rights, separate from the main body of the constitutional document. Neither of these evinced any intention to confine the Amendment to actions of the legislative branch.[3] fiveby(zero) 15:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if you're wondering if the "Congress shall make no law" bit were meant to apply to the entire Bill of Rights, but this can't be right because the First Amendment was originally #3. When the Bill of Rights was proposed, it contained twelve amendments, two of which weren't ratified with the rest; #1 has never been ratified, and #2 was ratified two centuries later. Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, i was wondering at Jayron32's apparent devotion to a judicial philosophy beyond the texualism of Antonin Scalia and even the strict constructionism of Hugo Black as it seems out of character. The OP asks if there's any significance to the first amendment saying "Congress shall make no law", but as Strauss puts it: instances in which we have departed from the text of the Constitution are obvious but more or less systematically ignored, like the fact that the First Amendment begins with "Congress." It has been tested at least once, in Shrum and that is McConnell's parenthetical mentioning the other amendments. I'm now wondering what is the point of providing references on the reference desk when they seemingly go unread. fiveby(zero) 04:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fivebyzero, why do you think they go unread? Pealarther hasn't replied here, but that doesn't mean he's not read them. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rosenkranz, Nicholas Quinn (2010). "The Subjects of the Constitution". Georgetown University Law Center.
  2. ^ Strauss, David A. (2016). "The Supreme Court, 2014 Term — Foreword: Does the Constitution Mean What it Says?". University of Chicago Public Law & Legal Theory Paper Series (574)..
  3. ^ Shrum v. City of Coweta, Okla., 449 F. 3d 1132 - Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit 2006

Some info on a picture

edit
 
Annunciation (in Islam)

Per Commons, unknown date and unknown author. If possible, I'd like some when and from where. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries, Soucek, P. (1975). "An Illustrated Manuscript of al-Biruni's Chronology of Ancient Nations". The scholar and the saint. see p. 149. fiveby(zero) 16:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiveby, ok so if I read that right, he says it's from something called "Edinburgh manuscript", which per [1] was copied 1307 by Ibn al-Kutbi, and the original is The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries by al-Biruni. Have I got it right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Chronology of Ancient Nations - Annunciation.jpg seems to agree... Sigh... Adding category to the first one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, the text is al-Biruni, the illustrations were not copied, the colophon has Ibn al-Kutubī and Anno Hegirae 707 (A.D. 1307-8) but not the artist, and she says. fiveby(zero) 17:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the image from University of Edinburgh if you'd like to link to an unaltered version. Or is that not just altered but from a wholly different manuscript? The first image you posted might be from a 17th century copy done in Cairo, but this link isn't working for me. fiveby(zero) 17:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the text was copied, but the images are 1307? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a bigger scan from Gallica and uploaded it over the previous image. It is the same manuscript since it has the same Bibliotheque Imperiale stamp and the same stain on the upper right corner. -- Error (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Error, Gråbergs Gråa Sång there are eleven surviving copies of the literary work which is c. A. D. 1000, the oldest 13th century[2]. Only two are illustrated the Edinburgh MS 161 with 14th century paintings, and BNF MS Arabe 1489 Error linked to, which is thought to be a 16th century Ottoman copy. fiveby(zero) 19:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bit messy, but thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2023_September_13&oldid=1176345928"