Humanities desk
< July 2	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 4 >

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 3

California Foreclosure Prevention Act

Hi all,

I was wondering why is there no article on the current moratorium stopping the foreclosures in California? Usually current topics like this land on wikipedia very fast, but I can't find any relevant content. --Spundun (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

p.s : Reference: http://www.google.com/search?q=California+Foreclosure+Prevention+Act

Feel free to start one. // BL \\ (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US Constitution Amendments on display?

Are all the amendments of the US Constitution on display at the National Archives. I know that the Bill of Rights and a few others are, but what about the rest? Are they displayed elsewhere, or just not important enough to put under glass? Tiailds (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(When someone answers this question, please edit the Charters of Freedom article to include the answer. The National Archives page just mentions the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, as Tiailds mentioned.) Tempshill (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A note here: There is no single "original" copy of the U.S. Bill of Rights. According to United States Bill of Rights, Congress made 14 copies of the Bill of Rights, one to keep and one to distribute to each state. The copy in the National Archives is thought to be the one sent to Georgia or Maryland. It's possible that Congressional leaders as late as 1971 (when the 26th Amendment was passed) sent formal printed copies of proposed constitutional amendments to the states, even though today's communications technology means that isn't really necessary. If that's the case, those copies are probably in the hands of the states if they're still around. The National Archives keeps copies of old bills, which presumably includes proposed constitutional amendments. See ([1]). Since hundreds of copies of proposed legislation are printed, there's probably no single "original" copy of latter-day constitutional amendments, either. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't there be an official or "executed" copy of any legislation. signed by the officials who thus assert that it is enacted? This is true of many official acts. Otherwise, how is one to know that a supposed "bill" or "amendment" is not the random caprice of a printer? Edison (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the National Archives is inconsistent in what they display for the amendments (and that's what we display in the articles.) Amendment XXVII, for example, has the page with the Archivist's signature that certifies the acceptance of the amendments. Other amendments seem to have just a copy of the Congressional resolution sending the amendment to the States. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the official publication of a U.S. Constitutional Amendment or Bill just requires that it is published in an official source such as the Federal Register. That organ of the state would publish it when some official (Secretary of the Senate???) sends them an order to publish it. That leaves open the possibility of hanky-panky. Edison (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one wouldn't need the signed copies for amendments? Unlike laws, which require a presidential signature or the president's ignoring the bill (see the introduction to pocket veto), a constitutional amendment doesn't require any action or inaction on the part of the president. I'm aware that the presiding officers of the two houses sign bills and resolutions that have been passed, but the Constitution doesn't say anything about that, so it's possible that they're not absolutely required. Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biting the lower lip

Is there any common interpretation of what it means when a person bites their lower lip? Vimescarrot (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess: insecurity, self-doubt, worry. Bus stop (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A link concerning the question is found here. Bus stop (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any kind of speculation like this is pretty useless because little tics like that are influenced by culture and your upbringing in early life, which varies a lot across the world. See Tic, although I don't really care for that article as it currently mostly talks about them in the context of mental disorders. Tempshill (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Body language should be a better starting place. Should be, but isn't. Fouracross (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on where you (or the biters) are coming from, it could allude to "oral aggression: biting and swallowing" (Nänny & Fischer, Form miming meaning: iconicity in language and literature‎, 1999) or "unmistakeblable allusions to imminent oral aggression" (Fónagy, Languages within Language: An Evolutive Approach, 2001), while An Asperger Dictionary of Everyday Expressions refers to it "as a facial gesture indicating that a person could say something on the subject but is not going to.". Finally (for now), Body Language for Dummies identifies it as one of the "three main lip chewing gestures associated with anxiety". ---Sluzzelin talk 18:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or they could just have a piece of loose skin that they're trying to chew off...--TammyMoet (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I fully expected a fuzzy answer, but ever optimistic, I asked anyway. ;-) Vimescarrot (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal political involvement in a constitutional monarchy

I've long known that constitutional monarchs weren't supposed to be involved in politics. However, after reading Royal family, I was surprised, for its wording suggested to me that, in most constitutional monarchies, members of royal families aren't allowed to vote. Is this true, or is it simply that they can exercise political preferences but only at the ballot box? Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some royal families of constitutional monarchies do not have the right to vote, others have the right but do not exercise it, as to do so would not be in accordance with the need for the appearance of neutrality. I can't think of a royal family that has the right to vote and exercises it, but I'd be interested to hear if there are any. Fouracross (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Belgian Royal Family can and do. They voted recently at the European Elections. The King is prohibited by law, however. --Cameron * 10:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhere in my memory that members of the House of Lords are not allowed to vote either. The theory, I believe, is that they are already represented in parliament, so they don't need a representitive in the Commons. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct - see Elections in the United Kingdom#Eligibility. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of a distant relic of the old European "three estates" system (in which nobility, clergy, and commoners all had their separate consultative assemblies). The traditional mid-20th-century journalistic phrase was something along the lines that all except lords, lunatics, paupers and felons were eligible to vote... AnonMoos (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Lord Nelson's got a vote!"

"He's got a boat, Baldrick."

crosses

If you are awarded the Victoria Cross, you get VC after your name.
If you are awarded the George Cross, you get GC after your name.

What happens if you are awarded the Elizabeth Cross? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.220.28 (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not much, I expect. It's not as if the recipients actually do anything to receive it. They're just next of kin. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. The use of a post-nominal is not authorized for a Commemorative emblem. It is only authorized for some decorations, honors and awards. --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 19:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Babenberg Ladies

Moved to User talk:Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy/List of Austrian consorts#Babenberg_Ladies by --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where Did Tolstoy, Live Around The Time Dostoevsky wrote crime and punishment.

Hello, my question is short and sweet I`am the aspiring screenwriter. Who wrote about the World War I solider on the miscellaneous page. I`m doing research on the two for a screenplay on crime and punishment. I want to know, where did Tolstoy live around the time Dostoevsky wrote crime and punishment.

Leo Tolstoy lived most of his life at Yasnaya Polyana, and there's nothing in his article to suggest he was leaving elsewhere in 1865–6, when Crime and Punishment was written. Algebraist 22:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]