Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 July 26

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities 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.

July 26

Russia collusion and Trump

If the investigations conclude that Russia did in fact colluded with the 2016 elections that when doing math prevented Hillary Clinton from becoming the president, would Trump be impeached and immediately be replaced with H. Clinton? PlanetStar 05:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in the US Constitution provides for the result of a presidential election to be changed once Congress has accepted the electoral vote. If the president is impeached and convicted, it's the same as if he died or resigned: the vice-president takes office under Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, and the 25th Amendment. If both are impeached and convicted (or both resign, or whatever), the next person in the line of succession takes office. Under the current Presidential Succession Act, that would be the Speaker of the House, currently Paul Ryan. --76.69.47.228 (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

As stated, the U.S. Constitution states what happens if the President vacates the office for whatever reason. As for "would Trump be impeached", this is a prediction, which we don't do on the Reference Desk. He would be impeached if the House of Representatives approved articles of impeachment against him. Note as well that in the U.S. government impeachment does not equate to removal from office. Impeachment is basically an accusation. The Senate then conducts a trial to determine whether to remove the accused from office, which requires two-thirds of Senators to vote in favor. Both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached, but acquitted by the Senate, meaning they remained in office.

I will discuss this because it's an interesting area of law. The most likely way Hillary Clinton would become President, between now and the next Presidential election, would be if she became Speaker of the House. A curiosity is that the Constitution nowhere states the Speaker must be a member of Congress. If both the President and Vice-President were removed from office, and the office of Vice-President was not filled in that time, the Speaker would become President. Another possibility is being appointed Vice-President after the removal from office of the President, but the President nominates such candidates. Pence would be very unlikely to nominate Clinton. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there absolutely no circumstance that would cause an "unscheduled" election to take place? Those of us who live in countries with a "Westminster style" parliamentary system find the absolute rigidity of US elections to be quite odd. It is often criticised as resulting in "lame duck" presidency during the last year or so of every term. The country has an inefficient government every fourth year, because everyone is in election mode instead of doing their actual day jobs. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it could depend on the precise circumstances but would likely require at a minimum Congressional action first.

Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 1: Executive Power states that president's term last four years. As mentioned in our article, prior to the 25th amendment, there was actually some dispute over whether the Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 6: Vacancy and disability allowed the vice president to succeed the president, or whether they were simply supposed to be acting president until an election could be organised. But the "Tyler Precedent" seemed to establish that they could and this was later made an explicit part of the constitution via the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. To be fair, the amendment doesn't actually seem to specify what the term for the new president is, but the only possible options would seem to be either four years, or the remaining term of the previous president. And the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution would require the term ends on the 20th of January. In any case, this would seem to preclude a special election for the president if there is still a VP to succeed them without a constitutional amendment.

However the 25th amendment only deals with the VP, and allows a new VP to be appointed. It doesn't deal with the situation when both the P and VP are 'lost'. In that case, it would return to article 2 clause 6 and while some would apply the Tyler precedent to this situation, I guess others may argue whoever it is is only supposed to stay until an election is organised. However that would likely require the Presidential Succession Act is amended or replaced by Congress. Possibly a Supreme Court decision, but I doubt it's something they'd get involved in. The original 1792 did provide for a special election although this was never required.

Note that there doesn't seem to be clear constitutional limit on when the elections could be held. Clause 2 of Article 2 simply allows Congress to set the date. So I guess congress could also simply make a new date for the Election Day (United States) to hold it in a few months if they wanted to. But this new president elect still wouldn't take office until whoever's term it is expires or if there is held to be no current president.

The net result of all this seems to be that Congress could potentially force a new presidential election if they really wanted to. If they impeach and convict the president, and then refuse to confirm a new VP and impeach and convict the current president/former vice president (although the order doesn't really matter), and sometime before that amend the Presidential Succession Act to provide for a special election when there is no president or vice president. I guess even in current law there is no clarity on what happens if there is no one in the legal line of succession, not even the designated survivor. But I think it was on the RD that someone said (I'm paraphrasing) if it even gets half that bad, it seems more likely there'll be a coup.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I probably should mention United States presidential line of succession since it hasn't been mentioned but may be of interest. Also I should mention even if the Supreme Court does get involved, it seems very unlikely they could or would decide to hold a new election. Instead they may rule the Presidential Succession Act (or whatever) is unconstitutional and so Congress will still need to pass a new law. Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, such "unscheduled" presidential elections are a virtual impossibility in the US. As for the "not doing their jobs" every fourth year (actually much more complicated than that as the House of Representatives and the Senate have their own election cycles that AREN'T four years long), the real problem is getting them to do their jobs at any time. --Khajidha (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Dodger67, the difference is that your president is elected by the legislature, unlike the US president, whose electors have no governmental role otherwise; once they choose the president, the electors go home and resume their ordinary lives, while aside from reviewing the votes to make sure everything's fine, the US federal legislature doesn't have any role in the presidential election, except in the extremely rare circumstance that nobody wins a majority and a winner has to be chosen. As noted above, they can reject votes, but if they rejected votes for partisan reasons, a massive crisis might result. As far as I know, the only time they've rejected votes from unquestionably qualified voters was in 1872, and the votes (just 3 of them) were rejected because the candidate had died before the votes were cast. [His opponent had won the election pretty handily already, despite having 14 of his own votes rejected because of irregularities, so rejecting the 3 votes couldn't possibly be construed as partisanship.] Nyttend (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

There were at least a couple of other 19th century electoral votes problems, but once they were decided under the terms of the Constitution, that was that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Nyttend That's another question I have: Does the US Electoral College really even exist? Do 400 specified people actually physically assemble and really elect the president, or is it merely a "statistical fiction"? Because in my entire adult life I've always seen (on tv) various commentators simply totalling up "electoral college votes" on a state-by-state basis and from that concluding who the next president will be. The losing and winning candidates also give speeches conceding defeat and declaring victory well before it is concievable that 400 actual humans could possibly have physically gathered and held a proper election. The whole concept of the electoral college is imho an obsolete relic of 18th century communication/transport systems which should be abolished as nonsensical. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The electors are real people who really exist. They do not meet as a single group, but each state's electors meet in their respective state capitol: Electoral College (United_States)#Meetings. In some states an elector who votes against the state's popular vote is punished in some manner, while Michigan state law specifies that an elector who votes against the popular vote is to have his vote voided. In practice, faithless electors are stupendously rare. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The Electoral College are groups elected by the voters in each state (us) and who meet in December in their respective states, to write down the electoral vote totals and send them to Congress where they are "officially" revealed when the Congress re-convenes in January. Here is discussion from 2016, in which a number of electors "rebelled" and voted for someone else than whom they were supposed to.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

[double edit conflict] Average people in each state (and the national capital district) vote for presidential candidates in early November, and the candidate who gets the most popular votes in each state gets to decide who the electors are for that state. The 538 electors never assemble as a single group: they assemble as 51 groups (one group in each state capital, plus the federal capital electors as the 51st group) and vote in December for president and vice president. It's basically guaranteed that every elector will vote for the candidate who appointed him (see faithless elector, one who doesn't vote as pledged); electors are chosen because they're party stalwarts. In 2016, when several didn't vote as pledged, it was the first election with two or more faithless electors since 1876, when all but three of the dead candidate's electors voted for living people. (This applies to the president; more electors have been faithless in regard to vice presidents.) With the exception of the dead candidate's electors, there have only been 28 electors who refused to vote for the presidential candidate to whom they were pledged; that's why the victory and concession speeches generally happen on the night of the popular vote. In Westminster terms, consider an election in which the government lose rather handily, and within hours of the polls closing, everyone knows which party will form the government. It's completely reasonable to say that this party's leader is going to become the PM, and the members of his shadow government are going to take specific ministerial positions, even though none of these people has officially gotten support from the new parliament, and nobody's yet been invited to kiss hands. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

And for the flipside of the comparison to Westminster rules, that system has always seemed unstable to me. I mean, how do you have any sense of security knowing that the government can change at any time?--Khajidha (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact that it's possible to change the government (through peaceful means) compares with many places on earth where change can only come through violent revolution. There's more security in the former than in the latter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Well who would have thought that the Soviet Union would break up peacefully? See Consecration of Russia for some theories. 86.131.233.223 (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Under current UK law, governments have fixed five-year terms. This can only be over-ruled by either a vote of no confidence in the government, or a 2/3 majority agreement in the House of Commons. Previously, governments had a maximum term of five years, but would in practice always be dissolved earlier on the advice of the Prime Minister. This meant that the government of the day could choose the time of the next election so as to favour themselves, which (potentially) increases the chance of them staying in power. So both systems are generally going to be pretty stable, as you won't get sudden, unexpected changes of government unless either the current government is so atrocious that most of the Commons (including many of their own MPs) agree it needs to go, or the Prime Minister (formerly) or a supermajority (currently) think it is in their interests to call an early election. And they're not going to do that unless they are confident they will do well. Oops. Personally I'd say that's a pretty good balance - its stable enough for everyone to plan around (unlike say Italy which changes government all the time), but allows a way to get rid of a truly atrocious government early (unlike the US).Iapetus (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

How to find New York Times bestsellers?

Is there some website or Internet resource that lists former bestsellers on The New York Times lists? Ideally, I'd like a "search-able" database: I enter the title (or author), and the website lets me know if/when the book (or author) appeared on the list. I have this website: Adult New York Times Best Seller Lists for 2010. But, to use that, I'd have to know exactly when a book appeared on the list. Which defeats my whole purpose. And most other sites that I found will only list the Number 1 book. But, I also need to find books that were on the list, but maybe not necessarily hitting #1. To clarify: I am seeking old / historical lists, not just the current list for this week. Also, I think that I went on to The New York Times official website, but I got kicked out because they want a paid subscription. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You could look for Book trade magazines like the (UK's) The Bookseller, which feature similar lists. There might be a US equivalent which utilise the NYT lists, and you might be able to access their back numbers without paying a subscription. On the other hand, the NYT expend significant resources to compile their lists (and would doubtless charge such trade journals for reusing them) so it doesn't seem unreasonable for them, or the journal, to charge for access to them. Equally, compiling a database such as you describe would take considerable time and effort, so if someone has done so (and I can't offhand think of a good reason to) it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to charge for it. (Then again, who would have thought 20 years ago that there'd be a completely free, 5 million-plus entry encyclopaedia online?) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.102.16 (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, to "sort of" answer your question: Someone indeed has done all of that work. See the website that I had referred to in my post. It's just that the way they did it does not suit my purposes. To use that website, I need to know the exact dates in question. But, nonetheless, that website creator (or whoever) did indeed compile all the data. As I said, this "sort of" answers your questions and the concerns you raised. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

A list of prominent ethnic/national unification movements

I want to do a list of prominent ethnic/national unification movements (they don't have to be successful, just prominent) throughout history. Thus, here goes:

-The unification of Greece between the 1830s and the 1910s. Greece also made some territorial gains after the end of World War I but quickly lost these territories to Turkey.

-The unification of Italy between 1859 and 1924.

-The unification of Germany between 1866 and 1871. Also, the Nazi German annexations of Austria and the Sudetenland in 1938 can be included in this category--though these were ultimately reversed in 1945. Also, there's the reunification of Germany in 1990.

-The unification of all South Slavs other than Bulgarians into one country--known as Yugoslavia--after the end of World War I in 1918. Of course, the break-up of Yugoslavia eventually undid this unification (though Serbia got to keep Vojvodina).

-The unification of all Romanian lands into one country (Romania) in 1918. This was partly undone as a result of the loss of Bessarabia (unlike the loss of Bessarabia, the loss of Northern Transylvania was temporary) later on, though.

-The reunification of Poland after the end of World War I. Poland was previously split between Germany, Austria, and Russia.

-The unification of all Eastern Slavs into one country after the end of World War II in 1945 when the Soviet Union ensured that the far western Ukrainian territories (the Budjak, northern Bukovina, Galicia, Volhynia, and Subcarpathian Ruthenia) would become a part of the Soviet Union.

-The unsuccessful attempt to unify all Somalis into one country after decolonization. This was evidenced by Somalia's unsuccessful invasion of Ethiopia's Ogaden region in 1977 and by Somalia's support of Kenyan Somali separatists during the Shifta War in the 1960s.

-The various unsuccessful attempts to unite various Arab countries after decolonization.

Anyway, which prominent ethnic/national unification movements am I forgetting to list here?

For the record, these movements don't have to be successful--just prominent. Futurist110 (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The Irish Republican Army/Sinn Fein and their allies. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point. There was a lot of support in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland for the unification of these two territories. Futurist110 (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Futurist110: But why does your list only commence with the nineteenth-century? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Because those are the examples that I could think of for this. Nationalism itself only appears to have become a potent force in the 19th century; before that, I don't recall any movements which aimed to unify a specific ethnic group into one state. Futurist110 (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Independence of Czechoslovakia from Austro-Hungarian Empire of Czechia, Moravia and Slovakia in 1918 after Word War I.

Yeah, I suppose, though it's worth noting that Czechs, Moravians, and Slovaks were all a part of Austria-Hungary before the start of World War I. Futurist110 (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but Bohemia, Czech Silesia and Moravia belonged to the Austrian part, while Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia belonged to the Hungarian part. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Annexation of Alsace and Lorraine to Germany in 1940 which allowed Nazi Germany to draft men into the German Armed Services.
Sleigh (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the German annexations of Alsace-Lorraine in 1871 and 1940 can be viewed as a part of a policy to put more ethnic Germans inside of the German Reich. Futurist110 (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Intentions hidden that first time however, and which illustrate a shift in ideological trends like you have highlighted before. ( For the motivations of Otto von Bismarck we do have « Kulturkampf ». In his (1871 post-victory conclusions he finally allowed himself that famous "The German character of the Alsatians and Lorrainers", who according to him, did like order and law. We hear often strictly the same comparing Latins and Anglo-Saxons, or Nordic people etc everyday, and if it was risky from him of stating that, I do not see how he could stylistically have formulated if he ever was counting on a.. durable annexation. ) It would prototypal, as an ethnic/national unification movement not from the inside by the way. --Askedonty (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Korean reunification is not yet successful, but it's certainly an important movement. Staecker (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Also maybe check out Category:National unifications. Staecker (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Kurdistan. Not successful (yet) and, like Poland, requires breaking parts away from existing countries before joining them together.

In a slightly different way, Australia (1901) and the USA (1781) consisted of several colonies, independent of each other but all depending on the same colonial power, that joined together. Other older examples: Switzerland (around 1300) and the Netherlands (1579). PiusImpavidus (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The point about the lack of national identity among the U.S. states cannot be overemphasized here. There was no "American Nation" before the 1770s, indeed even among the other British colonies in the Americas, serious consideration was given to (for example) including Canada/Quebec and various Caribbean island colonies in the confederation. Also, not every state was equally on-board with the confederation at various points. Georgia, New York, and Rhode Island all come to mind as specific states that needed convincing at various points throughout the 1770s and 1780s that forming a unified nation with the other former colonies was in their best interests. That the 13 original states were an inevitable outgrowth of the "13 colonies" is not really accurate; there weren't only 13 colonies in the Americas, and but for some historical near misses, it could have been 14 or 15 (or 12 or 11) original states. --Jayron32 18:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) Does Manifest destiny count? If not, how about the Unionist side in the Civil War? And don't I remember some sort of spat about reunifying Vietnam? Most medieval European countries were formed by one petty kingdom swallowing up its neighbours, but I don't know whether the expansionism of Wessex, Castile, the Île-de-France and so on can be considered unification movements. --Antiquary (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

And we have such a cartload of them at List of irredentist claims or disputes that I wonder whether you'll think your proposed list has been pre-empted. --Antiquary (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

And that's list is likely incomplete. For example Greater Indonesia isn't on it. That said, I'm not sure if an irredentist claim is always an "ethnic/national unification movements". For example, the North Borneo dispute seems to me to be clearly irredentist. But is is an ethnic/national unification movement? There is IMO little emphasis on that, probably due to the recognition that there is little desire for the reunification on the part of those in North Borneo so instead the emphasis is on the claim of how the territory still belongs to the Sultunate of Sulu. There's I guess also the question of how you define prominent. For example, unlike Indonesia Raya/Greater Indonesia, or the North Borneo dispute, I don't recall Maphilindo being mentioned in my secondary school Malaysian history. Nil Einne (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The Reconquista. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

There is also List of proposed state mergers, though it's also missing Indonesia. Being in theory less constrained than List of irredentist claims or disputes you'd think it would be much larger, but the two articles are about the same size. Matt Deres (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Per Nil Einne's Greater Indonesia, you might want to include the opposing and successful unification of the various states in the Malaysian peninsula and Malaysian Borneo ultimately resulting in modern Malaysia. This is prominent in my thoughts because of the Indonesian opposition to it, resulting in the Konfrontasi, which nearly killed my mother and I in the MacDonald House bombing – we should have been in the lift that the bomb was planted in or next to, at the moment the bomb went off, but were running 5 minutes late and instead were still in a taxi approaching the building. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.102.16 (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Some much earlier events, that predate modern notions of nationalism, but might still be relevant: the unification of the various independent Anglo-Saxon kingdoms into a single English kingdom by Æthelstan; the unification of the Mongols under Genghis Khan; James IV securing control over the semi-independent islands]]; the consolidation of the various Russian principalities into a single kingdom begun by Ivan III and completed by Ivan IV. Now, one could argue that these are really just cases of Kings expanding their territories, but I'm pretty sure they have all been treated after the fact as the natural consolidation of nations into nation states. Iapetus (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Philosophers from Ancient Sparta

Were there any philosophers that came from ancient Sparta? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoda from Stat Wars (talk • contribs) 21:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Chilon of Sparta.KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You can probably find more by starting at the category Category:Ancient Spartans and checking every sub-category and sub-sub-category. --Jayron32 18:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

There was also Lycurgus although he probably wasn't a real person. Basically the short answer is no, not in the classical period, because by then Sparta was not really the sort of place where people had leisure time to philosophize, like Athens did. Athenian philosophers like Plato had a strange admiration for the, well, as we would say, "Spartan lifestyle" in Sparta, even though it meant Spartans didn't produce any literature or culture. Later, in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, there are some references to Spartan/Laconian philosophers, but none whose works have survived, if they wrote any. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)