Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 October 6

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an 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

Entrenched provisions

How exactly does one write an entrenched clause into Federal law? (Bonus points if the clause is entrenched throughout the Congressional debate process, so they can take it or leave it but cannot easily amend it.) 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:D403:68F1:A297:C74A (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Haven't we just been through this? Except for the fact that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" it is not legislation in the normal sense. The constitution is not a set of laws, but a charter of limited powers granted to or denied to the various states, congress and so forth, as wel as setting relations between the branches and the means to change the charter. What most people think of as "laws" are matters at the state level, except for a very few issues that involve matters like war, treason, the military code, and crimes crossing state lines--and NONE of those is entrenched. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, so the answer is, there's no way to do this? Thanks for the bad news! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:D403:68F1:A297:C74A (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

In fact, since the constitution is a framework which authorizes, limits, and governs federal law, the constitution itself would have to mention the power to write entrenched laws, but it doesn't. The rule of thumb is that the states or people can do anything not forbidden them (9th & 10th amendments) and the federal government may only exercise its enumerated powers. μηδείς (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, since per Article Five of the United States Constitution allows the Constitution to be amended, it is impossible to entrench any clause, since any change by amendment can be repealed by another. There's really nothing any government can do to prevent future governments from doing whatever they want given sufficient political will.--Jayron32 03:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant by "the means to change the charter" in my original answe, but a specific reference to the Fifth Article is a good idea. μηδείς (talk)

Even moreso, if the political will is strong enough, there's nothing really stopping the powers from just throwing it all in the trash and starting over again. I cannot think of a modern state that hasn't done that at LEAST once in it's history, sometimes violently, sometimes peacefully. But it happens often enough. The rules only exist as long as they are useful. If they aren't useful, make new rules.--Jayron32 20:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Article V of the Constitution states 'and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.23.25.64 (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, this issue just came up within the last week or two, by 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:EDA1:6DA2:2F4C:8E0A (talk · contribs) so possibly the same guy (see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 September 25) and you've given the answer (again). The other part of it was about importation of slaves or some such, which had a built-in deadline, and due to the anti-slavery amendment, is totally obsolete. Even Article V has the "escape clause", so to speak, that a state could voluntarily give up its equal suffrage in the Senate, although that would be a ridiculous thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed I'm the same person with the same problem -- I'm drafting a bill to protect freedom of expression online, but I'm afraid that the corrupt congresscritters, simply by adding a few extra clauses to one section and/or removing certain crucial words from other sections, can turn it into a law which doesn't actually do anything at all (and, under pressure from tech companies, may do precisely that). So I reckon that there's no way to hinder this in the bill itself, and my best bet would be to find a congresscritter who's principled enough to withdraw the bill if this happens. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:0:0:0:EA04 (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you trying to write a state, or federal law? If it's a federal law...well...good luck! State constitutions may differ by allowing referenda. μηδείς (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Is the maximum density a full pickup bed can hold still increasing?

Two models can hold water to the brim now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I suppose so, since engines are becoming ever more powerful while remaining just as compact, and transmissions are also constantly improving (just for comparison, some of the higher-end pickup trucks of today can carry as much cargo as a deuce-and-a-half from the WW2 era). 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:D403:68F1:A297:C74A (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

They can tow much more than they can carry, engine power doesn't seem to be the limiting factor. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Engine torque and gear ratios matter, too, especially to get everything moving initially. And going uphill requires far more "oompf" than level ground. (Going downhill may not even require that the engine be running, just that the transmission is in neutral.) StuRat (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

When I drove trucks in the military, I used lower gears when going downhill to force it to slow down without using brakes. Putting it in neutral would mean that I'd have to brake and risk having the load go sideways. I'm sure good truck drivers can brake without any concern, but my training was "press the green button to turn it on." 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I just meant that it's possible, not advisable, to go downhill without running the engine. Losing power steering and power brakes would be other good reasons to avoid it. StuRat (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The tires, suspension, and strength of the bed itself will also matter. And, if you were to try to drive a pick-up with the bed filled with water (presuming a cover to prevent it from sloshing out), I would expect the sloshing to make it difficult to drive. StuRat (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

This is why doubling the amount of rear wheels greatly increases the rated payload capacity. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a "dually". StuRat (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Why use a pickup? Make a Jacruzzi Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)