Humanities desk
< January 10	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 12 >

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.

January 11

Why was Guinness given a 9,000 year lease?

Closed per WP:DNFTT. If the question can be asked without the judgemental commentary, feel free to ask again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Seems idiotic, to be honest. The Masked Booby (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Idiotic to guarantee a major business venture, cultural icon, and tourist attaction would remain in your town, and not move somewhere more lucrative or cheaper? --Jayron32 01:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, idiotic. None of what you said was true in 1759 when he signed the lease, but you know that because you read the article, right? The Masked Booby (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To give the 2000 Year Old Man, the Wandering Jew, and the Highlander a stable work environment? (I don't know that I'd patronize a place described as a tourist attaction.) Clarityfiend (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has supposedly been superseded by other agreements, for what it's worth. [1] Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you are using insulting words like idiotic, don't expect an answer from us. --Lgriot (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a descendent of Sir Mark Rainsford? Because that's the only way I can understand you being offended by me insulting a 250 year old lease. The Masked Booby (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it idiotic? What would be more sensible? 9 years? 900 years? 9 minutes? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever rented anything for 9,000 years? Contracts like that don't really happen every day you know. The Masked Booby (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given than 9000 years is on par with the amount of known human history, it is a bit ambitious. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the nonsense above, this is a common question with a simple answer. At the time, land-owners rarely sold land. They wanted to retain the status as "land owner". So, instead of selling land, they would lease it for extremely long lengths of time. In this case, it is so long that the land is essentially considered sold even though it is technically a lease. -- kainaw ™ 18:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a meaningful answer! The Masked Booby (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US citizenship and voting

If one must be a US citizen to vote in US government elections, what is the big hoopla over this move to require proof-of-citizenship for voting registration? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there are larger issues but one argument that I've heard is that it may be difficult for the elderly or those who don't speak English (at all or as a first language) to be able to get the proof necessary to register or ultimately vote at all. One situation mentioned on NPR today was where a woman couldn't provide a birth certificate because she never had one. She was born at home and was never given a birth certificate. Therefore, she was not allowed to vote. Dismas|^(talk) 05:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The state of Wisconsin passed a law requiring a photo ID in order to vote, then proceeded to close the DMV offices where the IDs are distributed, in areas where poor people, who do not have driver's licenses, would be most likely to get the ID. In addition, the cost of such IDs is sometimes prohibitive for poor people. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article goes on at length about the debated figure of US citizens who lack a current ID. A widely reported figure is 11 percent. Minorities and the poor supposedly make up a disproportionately large percentage of those citizens. That last fact is why there is hoopla — voter ID laws favor the Republican Party. We have an article, Voter ID laws (United States). Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The big "hoopla" is that in-person voter impersonation fraud is by all reputable accounts vanishingly rare, and never shifts the outcome of elections. What fraud exists is almost always either 1] Voter registration fraud, where feckless low-level voter-registration canvassers who are being paid by advocacy groups for each person they sign up to register make up phoney fraudulent names (and the only intent is to defraud the advocacy group to get paid more, not to actually cast any invalid votes), or 2] Involves absentee or mail-in ballots. Therefore voter ID requirements are largely a solution in search of a problem. Part of the whole U.S. Attorneys firing scandal of 2006-2007 was that certain U.S. Attorneys were under huge pressure from Bush administration officials and/or members of Congress to prosecute cases of alleged voter fraud, when there was actually almost nothing to prosecute (certainly not in the form of in-person voter impersonation fraud which ever came remotely close to changing the outcome of any election)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Never"? I take it your not from Chicago (or New York). Rmhermen (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What cases of in-person voter-impersonation fraud have there been in the United States in the last 20-25 years which came remotely close to shifting the outcome of an election?? -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm genuinely curious about those cases. Was election fraud (in the 20th century) in those cities generally carried out by individuals without identification voting multiple times? I would have expected corrupt election officials to represent a much more efficient – and less labor intensive, and less easily detected – and therefore preferable route to election fraud. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, because smaller conspiracies are easier to pull off than massive ones, that nearly all voter fraud that swings elections (of the Chicago type) are caused by a few corrupt elections officials who dick with the numbers post-vote than with any large numbers of ineligible voters sneaking in, or with individual people filling out multiple ballots. While I don't doubt that on occasion, individual voters may occasionally get to vote, the greater issue is official corruption; and no photo-ID requirement will touch that. --Jayron32 18:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. We have an article Voter ID laws (United States). A lot of people in Texas wonder why passing a voter ID law was such a priority for the Republicans in the January-May 2009 session of the legislature that they had to suspend normal parliamentary procedures in order to specially smooth its passage, which resulted in most bills being unable to pass due to Democratic efforts against the Voter ID bill, and made it necessary for the governor (Rick Perry) to call another whole special legislative session to redo much of the failed work of the regular session (Google texas legislature chubbing to turn up plenty of info, such as [2], but nothing really on Wikipedia as far as I can tell). AnonMoos (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Awntyrs off Arthure

Does anybody know where I can find a Modern English version of "The Awnthyrs off Arthure" (or can anybody translate)? Would help me a lot! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.14.10 (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an online translation here. Be aware that "Translating alliterative poetry is exceptionally challenging due to its unique form and vocabulary" and that this linked version "recognizes the impossibility of reproducing its dense poetic texture with naturalness in modern English and chooses the form of a “free” prose translation in which [it] conveys “what Langland says” without feeling obliged to retain “the way in which he says it”" (from the Commentary to the translation). --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a verse translation by Jessie Weston here. --Antiquary (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple questions from a non-english speaking country

Could someone please clarify whether this is correct (conc. England & Wales) ?

A young new lawyer starts as a solicitor ?
After proven him/herself over a period of time he or she can be appointed to barrister ?
Or do solicitors and barristers have different edjucation ?
Some barristers gets appointed to QCs after proven very well as barrister ?
However a QC has the same juridical functions as barristers ?
Barristers and QC's may speak both for the accused and for the crown ?
And finally - judges. Do they have a different education then solicitors, barristersan QC's ?

I'm from Sweden but am very interested of the english juridical system. I've watched "Silk" and "Judge John Deed" but the TV-series is not the only reason for my interest in theese matters. /John Pontus Eriksson 83.249.36.162 (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question moved from Talk:Queen's Counsel to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, step 2. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC) >[reply]

Some of those are correct, I'll try to go through them one by one as best I can, I'm a student who is planning a career in the law.

A young new lawyer starts as a solicitor ?

Sort of. In the UK there are two types of lawyer. Solicitors and Barristers are different types of lawyers for different parts of the case. Your solicitor 'does the paperwork', putting the case together and doing all the stuff before court (including organising the actual serving of court papers, putting together of documents etc). The Barrister speaks in court. You can now have solicitors who are allowed to speak in court also, 'Solicitor-Advocates', but these are relatively rare.

After proven him/herself over a period of time he or she can be appointed to barrister ?

See above.

Or do solicitors and barristers have different edjucation ?

Through school and university, the education is the same. After university a student must do a LPC (Legal Practise Course) to become a solicitor or a BPTC (Bar Practitioners Training Course) to be a barrister. A trainee solicitor will do a two year Training Contract to qualify fully in the industry (basically a two year apprenticeship, but as a trainee employee). A trainee barrister will do a Pupillage, which is a more traditional apprenticeship, with a Chambers of barristers (ie a group of barristers who work alongside each other, but not strictly speaking together).

Some barristers gets appointed to QCs after proven very well as barrister ?

Exactly. A QC is basically the name for a top barrister. The rough-equivalent for a solicitor is to be made a Partner of his/her firm. QC is a national thing, Partner is within a firm.

However a QC has the same juridical functions as barristers ?

Yes. The job of speaking in court does not change if you are a QC or Barrister. QCs are normally better, so will be used for the biggest cases, but there is no change in the function.

In important cases (like serious crimes, for example) parties are typically represented by a "leader" who is a QC, and a "junior", another barrister who is not a QC. This, by the way, is why the previously mentioned fictional character "Rumpole of the Bailey" is inordinately proud of his role, "alone and without a leader" in defending the accused in the "Penge Bungalow Murders" case.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barristers and QC's may speak both for the accused and for the crown ?

Absolutely, they are 'levels' of advocate, not sides. Both sides in a trial will have a barrister, and both can hire a QC if they wish.

And finally - judges. Do they have a different education then solicitors, barristers and QC's ?

Judges are recruited from Solicitors and Barristers. In practice, barristers (and especially QCs) make up the vast majority of judges, so you could say that judges tend to have an education from the BPTC not the LPC, but there is no rule requiring it.

Hope that helps. Prokhorovka (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of other points beyond Prohkorovka's very full answer:

The answer to your question 2 is No. It is very rare for a solicitor to become a barrister, or vice versa. Normally a lawyer chooses which branch to go into and stays there.
Traditionally a solicitor could not speak in court, and a barrister would not deal directly with a client; so a client would engage a solicitor, who would "instruct" a barrister if required (not only for court appearances: sometimes just for a more authoritative opinion on a matter). As Prokhorovka says, some solicitors can now speak in court. I don't know whether barristers still insist on being instructed by solicitors, or whether some of them do accept clients directly.
Since 1971 there has been a post of Recorder, which is a part-time judge: both barristers and solicitors may be appointed recorders, and our article implies that all judges now appointed have been recorders. --ColinFine (talk)

Watch a few episodes of Rumpole of the Bailey to round out your British legal television education. More fun than Law and Order UK. Rmhermen (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's also perhaps worth pointing out that barristers appear in the "higher" courts. In a Magistrates' court if a defendant is represented by a lawyer it will almost invariably be a solicitor. Links: Barrister, Solicitor and Barristers in England and Wales. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You both, very good information. I thow forgot to ask the question Might a person speak for himself in a court ? Whithout instructing solicitor or/and barrister/QC ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.38.128 (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both in magistrates and crown courts, but giving rise to the maxim that a man who represents himself has a fool for a client. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some more relevant links: Litigant in person (UK, and jurisdictions that use that wording); Pro se legal representation in the United States ("pro se" = "for him or her self", roughly); Rights of audience; McKenzie friend.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above smacks of criminal law. Regarding business law, estate planning, and family law, is the division of work as follows (S=solicitor, B=barrister): a)S draws up contracts, b)B appears in court to enforce terms of contracts, c)S drafts wills, d)B appears in Probate Court or equivalent to settle an estate, e)S negotiates for terms in a divorce, f)B appears in divorce court? Are there recorded instances of a barrister who knows far less about the case than the solicitor standing up in court and asserting things that the solicitor knows to be untrue (theoretically unethical in US practice), or failing to make a point which would help his client because he was only "instructed" and does not have the entire picture ( an ethical lapse in US practice)? Is the solicitor in the courtroom, where he can consult with the barrister when either of these two events occurs? The article Barrister and Barristers in England and Wales mention the solicitor being on the other side of the "bar" from the barrister and judge, out there with the public and law students. In the colonial US, were there solicitors and barristers called such? Edison (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found that Arthur Lee (diplomat), one of the commissioners the United States sent to negotiate a treaty with the King of France in 1776, was called a "barrister at law." Did the US or its predecessor colonies have their own "Temples of Law" which admitted such a barrister to practice law in the colonies or the successor US, or would these men have been products of the London Bar? If so, perhaps the cutting off from the "Inns of Court" led to the dropping of the "barrister" term among later US lawyers. Edison (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very strangely, though I could not find historical evidence of a division into US solicitors and barristers after the American Revolution, the US in 1870 established the position of United States Solicitor General, who does not prepare a brief for some United States Barrister General, but who in fact goes to court to argue cases for the United States government. Edison (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find that Arthur Lee (diplomat) was in fact a London educated lawyer, though born in America. Immediately after the American Revolution. there must have been a paucity of such London barristers, since most likely sided with Britain. Edison (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the California Bar, the colonies and early states had oral bar examinations in front of judges. The term "bar" has always existed to refer to various aspects of the legal profession in the U.S., so that wouldn't explain dropping the word "barrister." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, England and Wales has an Attorney General. Proteus (Talk) 17:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Horizontal map of California

I am looking for a map of California which is horizontally oriented, preferably with east (or north-east) at the top. I can't find anything on Google Image Search. Does anyone know if such a map exists? Thanks. LANTZY ^TALK 12:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I sound facetious, but would you not be able to grab a Map of California from any website, and then use your favourite Image editor to rotate it 90 (or 180 or 270 as appropriate) degrees to get East at the top? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then the place names are not horizontal - it's a funny kind of request, but it makes enough sense to me. IBE (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, sorry, I hadn't thought of that. By way of apology, here is a jpg I made from Google Earth with NE (approximately) at the top. If you have GE you can probably make a much better attempt or, if you want, let me know how to improve it and I'll post it here again. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I had thought there might possibly be an quaint old map floating around to meet my case, but if not, Google Earth will probably serve. LANTZY ^TALK 16:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ecoche --- in relation to human anatomy

the word ecoche in relation to human anatomy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.63.54 (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you perhaps mean Écorché? (I had never heard the word, but it is what Google gave me when I searched for "ecoche".) --ColinFine (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ordination question

I've been working on an article about a Catholic priest (Alexis Bachelot, it's up for peer review if anyone's interested) and was wondering, should I write that he was "ordained a priest in 1820" or "ordained as a priest in 1820"? I've seen both versions used recently and didn't know if there is a preferred version here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We see the same divide between "appointed as a Commander of the Order of the Golden Whatever" vs. just "appointed a Commander ...". I guess they're both considered grammatical since both are found abundantly, but me, I prefer the one without the "as". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To my UK-based ear, ". . . he was ordained priest . . ." and ". . . he was appointed Commander . . ." also sound acceptable, but may not be officially sanctioned. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.53 (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks folks. I guess I'll just leave it the way I have it now (which I can't seem to recall off the top of my head). Mark Arsten (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

old newspapers and mazagines?

where can people get copies online of old newspapers and mazagines? I mean, like JSTOR for journals but it would be really really really useful to actually have the opportunity to go back to the 1936 edition of The Times and data mine the obituaries and news articles there for info for Wikipedia; surely it must also be important for proper historians as well? so why hasn't nobody done it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.10.226 (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major libraries keep back-issues of newspapers. The used to keep them on microfilm or microfiche, though many may have digitized them. If you have a major university nearby, or a major urban center, you can likely go and ask the reference librarian there how to access very old newspapers. He or she will be able to help you easily; many people use such documents for research. --Jayron32 18:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP address indicates that you may be in the UK. It is worth checking the website of your local library service. Mine, Essex Libraries, allows me to use my library card number to access all sorts of newspaper archives if I log-on through their website. I have used it many times. I believe other libraries run similar schemes so you should check with your provider. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google News has archives of old newspapers, but it's kind of random, and I'm not sure there are any from the UK. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do a Google search for British Newspaper Archive, but be prepared to pay - the search is free but the results are pay per view. You may be able to access it through a library. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise for many Irish newspapers. The Irish Times is also subscription, but free access at many public libraries, at least in Ireland. RashersTierney (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Times does indeed have a comprehensive online archive from the late eighteenth century onwards, operated by Gale as a subscription service - I believe it's one of the oldest major online newspaper archives. Not being free does not mean it doesn't exist! Shimgray | talk | 21:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trove has Australian newspapers. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the OP is after biographical historical data, I should point out that the London Gazette (and its counterparts the Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes) is online. This is where honours awarded to individuals and promotions in the armed services are announced. These are indeed free to view. (I feel it our duty to point out where a paywall exists, so that the unwary are not trapped). --TammyMoet (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine empire

Which present-day countries/territories were included in what we now call the Byzantine Empire? I could not seem to find this information in the aforementioned article, although perhaps I simply missed it. Should it truly not be there, by all means, it should be included.190.25.95.239 (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It started off as the eastern half of the Roman Empire, including Mediterranean lands east of about 19°E. In the 6th-century Justinian reconquered "Africa" (northern Tunisia and northeastern Algeria) and parts of Italy. In the 7th century, Egypt and Syria were lost to the Islamic conquests, while Avars and Slavs advanced in the Balkans and Greece proper. From that time until the battle of Manzikert, Anatolia was the area with the largest bloc of Greek native-language speakers, and in some ways the heart of the empire. After the battle of Manzikert, the Byzantine empire was kind of a minor state (even driven from Constantinople for a time after the Fourth Crusade). AnonMoos (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "parts of Italy" really was "most of Italy", some of which stayed under Byzantine rule for about 500 more years (albeit with strongly varying levels of actual control), until Robert Guiscard and his family unified much of southern Italy. Justinian also added parts of Spain. Also, from Manzikert to the 4th Crusade was a period of about 130 years, during which the Empire remained a major power, and indeed reconquered much of Anatolia. It's easy to see the long, slow decline, but 130 years is 4-5 full generations. 130 years ago Britain was king of the world, Germany was freshly unified, and Japan was beginning to transform itself into a modern power. There are 130 years between the French revolution and the end of World War I, or between the US Declaration of Independendence and HMS Dreadnought. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sicily and Sardinia in Italy, Corsica in France, part of Crimea in Ukraine and Republic of Cyprus and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
Sleigh (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Byzantines only conquered the southernmost part of Spain, and were only able to retain a firm rule over Italy as a whole for a very few decades (the chief long-term effect of getting rid of the Ostrogoths being to open the way for the Lombards). Between Manzikert and the 4th crusade, the Byzantines were a somewhat significant regional power, but had lost almost all claims to be a great empire (other than the slightly-faded splendor of their capital city)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question, we really have to ask... What historical era are you asking about? The Empire expanded and contacted several times in its history. Only a relatively small area right around the city of Byzantium itself (modern Istanbul) remained Byzantine territory throughout the entire life of the Empire. An animated map would probably be more informative (and more accurate for any given time period) than a list of modern countries. Blueboar (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not even that. After the Sack of Constantinople in 1204, the Byzantine Empire didn't even control its own capital city, that fell to what became the Latin Empire, which was a Crusader State. For a time in the 13th century, there were several competing Byzantine successor states, including the Empire of Trebizond, the Empire of Nicaea and the Despotate of Epirus. The Empire of Nicaea would recapture Constantinople in 1261, so really only the territory of the Empire of Nicaea could be considered to be continuously Byzantine. The best way to answer the OP's question would be to tell which modern countries were under control of the Byzantine Empire at its maximum extent. In that case This map could be overlayed or compared to any modern map with modern borders, and that could be figured out. --Jayron32 02:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicaea was under Seljuk control from 1077 to 1097, and was conquered by the Ottomans in 1331, so that doesn't fit either. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Checking over several maps, there was no territory which was continuously under Byzantine control for its whole history, from say 500 AD-1453 AD. Literally every bit of what was sometimes the Byzantine Empire was at some point in that time frame also part of another state. --Jayron32 17:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand the question. There are several maps in the arcticle, from which you can infer what part of which modern country was included at different time of the 1000 years during which the Empire existed. --Lgriot (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they couldn't be bothered to work it out from the maps and wanted us to do it for them and give them a list? 148.197.81.179 (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voter ID laws

These laws require a driver's license or similar to vote, but since you have to pay for those, aren't they poll taxes? --108.225.115.211 (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would seem so to me. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP address is American so I guess that's your interest. Voter ID laws (United States) says: "Because of laws against any form of poll tax in the United States, voting must be made free to all voters. Several state governments have paid for and distributed free voter IDs to help them comply." It also says: "Wisconsin's Voter ID law provided free IDs to people who did not have them. In practice, state employees at the DMV were instructed to provide the IDs for free only if people specifically asked to have their fee waived. A Wisconsin state employee was fired for telling other employees that the IDs were free by law, and that they should inform people who may need them to vote." PrimeHunter (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The state of Wisconsin also closed down many of the DMVs in the areas served by poor people, making it difficult for them to even go to a place where they could get an ID. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC

What was the Supreme Court's reasoning in this case? Does their decision mean that churches are now allowed to practice, for example, racism? --108.225.115.211 (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They always have been. I'm not a lawyer, but it appears that a U.S. church is legally able to refuse to hire a black minister. They cannot, however, refuse to hire a black janitor or accountant. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale seems to be that the First Amendment prohibits the state from interfering with the religious administration of religious organisations (as in the employment of people who have a religious role such as ministers or in this case "called teachers"), even though the state may be able to regulate the secular affairs (as in hiring janitors). Employment law which regulates the employment of ministers of religion is apparently considered as state interference in religion.[3] The full ruling is available here. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the actual opinion here. Straight from the horses mouth, as they say. The so-called "Ministerial exception" has been recognized for some time. The question in this case was how far it extended - did it apply to a teacher at a religious school, who had some religious duties, but mostly secular duties? The court said it did. It is still unclear exactly how broad the exception is. Thomas wrote a concurring opinion that said that the religious groups should basically be able to say who's covered, while Alito and Kagen had a concurrence defining it somewhat more narrowly - basically anyone who has a role in conducting services or teaching the faith. Buddy431 (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]