Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 August 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< August 22 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 24 >
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.


August 23

[edit]

Merchant Marine Act of 1936

[edit]

Our question:

Is the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, and specifically the part quoted below, still in force?


"The United States shall have a merchant marine...[to] serve as a naval or military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency...[and] should be operated by highly trained and efficient citizens of the United States and that the United States Navy and the Merchant Marine of the United States should work closely together to promote the maximum integration of the total seapower forces of the United States...

Has the Act been rescinded in part or in full?

Thanks for your help! 2601:3:8C0:53:F076:8760:4803:35CC (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United States Merchant Marine doesn't say it was ever rescinded. StuRat (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's in force, it should be included in the United States Code, isn't it? This website allows searches of the code, which gives five results for "Merchant Marine Act of 1936" (in quotes). Not being a lawyer, the results are Greek to me, but seem to refer to pieces of legislation that used to be in that act. You can also use the browse functions below the search box to look at Title 46-Shipping and Subtitle V-Merchant Marine. 184.147.116.153 (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Not all, in fact most, laws are not codified in the U.S. Code, however most of them understood as "statutes" in a colloquial way (I may be overstating that some) are codified into the code. So the relevant parts you're talking about are probably in the Code, if they're still in force. However, the organization will be very different. Some laws are referred to by their code section (e.g., 26 USC 503) while others are referred to by their public law organization (e.g., Title 9; SEC Rule 10b-5; etc.). I don't know how which gets chosen.
It's likely the law's been amended in part over the years. The organization of the public laws, and finding out which is still in effect is more complicated than you might expect. Our articles on United States Statutes at Large, United States Code, and some related articles give some overview of how these fit together. Shadowjams (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Conan Doyle

[edit]

What locations in Australia did Sir Arthur Conan Doyle visit? 114.75.62.191 (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the question. I had no idea Doyle had ever been here.
This is a useful 10-minute conversation about the trip. They mention Perth, Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne.
They also discuss Doyle's book about his trip to the Antipodes, The Wanderings of a Spiritualist. You can read it here. I've had a quick skim, and learnt that his Down Under itinerary went something like this:

Upcoming Film based on a Book: "The Book Thief."

[edit]

I see this film is getting a lot of advance buzz. What is this about? I see that it's based on a relatively well received book, "The Book Thief." But what is the movie really about? Is it all about Nazis or what? It seems like the book is just about some little girl that steals books and hangs out at home, how could that be a good movie? Herzlicheboy (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the articles The Book Thief and The Book Thief (film)? The book article describes the plot, which seems to have plenty of detail for transfer to the screen. Rojomoke (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did read the articles here, and on IMDB. However, I just don't see how that book could make a decent film. Can you give me some insight please? Herzlicheboy (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The insight you need is to no longer take a brief description of what a story is about, and immediately conclude it couldn't make a good film. Hell, Kubrick could take a pair of flies crawling up a wall and make a two-hour epic out of it, and you'd be transfixed. Conversely, people have taken the world's greatest stories and made utterly disastrous and appalling films out of them. It's all down to the skills of the film maker and has very little to do with "what it's about". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of them chases the other up the wall with an itty, bitty axe. It'll be titled The Climbing. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Complete with lots of converging-perspective shots, and point-of-view-of-the-flies shots. And don't forget the music score by Wendy Carlos. And, as an inside joke, cameo appearances by David Hedison and Jeff Goldblum. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk contraception procurement

[edit]

The last page of http://www.who.int/entity/3by5/en/HIVtestkit.pdf describes the World Health Organization for bulk procurement of HIV tests. Where is the corresponding process for bulk procurement of contraception? 192.81.0.147 (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WHO: Reproductive Health Essential Medicines: Procurement. There appear to be different documents for different contraceptives and different countries. 184.147.116.153 (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly. I copied your answer to WT:MED where I had originally asked. 192.81.0.147 (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II

[edit]

provided she's still alive, when will Elizabeth celebrate her next jubilee, after 65 years or 70. Will there be plans to celebrate the occasion when she succeeds Victoria as longest reigning monarch? My guess would be the next jubilee milestone would be 70 years --Andrew 21:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCRYSTAL. The same question was asked here and I'll give the same advice - there are probably people around the Queen who have given it some thought, but we don't know what those thoughts are and it's unlikely we (her "loyal" subjects) will know anything until a year or two in advance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At her age, they are likely to take things one year at a time. The next milestone would be to surpass Victoria's record. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lizzy is well on track to surpass Vicky's record, as well as the longest-reigning female monarch in world history. This milestone is only a little over 2 years away. See List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign#Current monarch. She'll still be in her (late) 80s, a spring chicken by comparison to her mother, who made 101. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, we have an article about this: see Platinum Jubilee. Alansplodge (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, List of longest-reigning monarchs has two who surpassed 80 years. And after platinum is ... oak? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alan King, who liked to talk about stuff like anniversaries, would have said "Iron", as you need to be made of iron to last that long. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Executive Platinum, perhaps? --Pete (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing good showing up for 80 years, but for 90, plutonium might be an option... MChesterMC (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One can only hope that if and when there is another commemoration for Liz, the timing and naming make more sense than last time. HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Please explain". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters, Liz became queen on 6 February 1952. Most of the Diamond Jubilee celebrations seemed to happen in June 2012. HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They decided to hold events right throughout the Jubilee Year, not just on one day. The climax was the 4-day June long weekend, which was deemed the most suitable time for the Thames Pageant, both weather-wise and also because the people are always in holiday mode at that time, and it also fell on the 59th anniversary of her Coronation in June 1953, which was a WAY bigger deal, public-celebration-wise, than her accession, which was also by definition the anniversary of her father's death. February in Britain is freezing cold and hopeless for outdoor mass public events. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - see 6 February 2012: Schools and roads affected by ice as cold week forecast. Alansplodge (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but as Jack said, the coronation wan't having a diamond jubilee. It was all very unclear to me precisely what was being commemorated. HiLo48 (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think Jack's right. It was 60 years since the accession, but it was celebrated with a Jubilee Year with the highest profile events on a "Central Weekend"[1] which 1) coincided with the Coronation anniversary 2) Could give folks in the UK an extra holiday weekend avoiding existing Public Holidays and school breaks, 3) avoided Trooping the Colour on the second Saturday in June and 4) there was a reasonable chance that the weather would be reasonable (as it turned out it was rubbish, but this is Britain after all). This also follows the precedents set for previous Jubilees - the Golden Jubilee of Queen Victoria was also celebrated in June, but a little later. The 60th Anniversary of the Coronation was celebrated in more muted style in June this year[2]. Note that the Coronation itself is timed to catch the summer weather, although it pissed down in 1953. William the Conqueror was crowned on Christmas Day - he wasn't known as "William the Bastard" for nothing ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec x2) Well, all the hoop-la was about the 60th anniversary of her accession to the throne. As I said, the precise date was 6 February, but they had a year-long celebration, and the signature event just happened to coincide with the anniversary of the Coronation in June. I agree there is scope for confusion there, particularly as many people erroneously believe a UK monarch only becomes the monarch when they're crowned. (In fact, they accede the very instant the incumbent monarch dies, and there is never a moment when there is no monarch, hence the expressions "The king never dies" and "The King is dead. Long live the Queen".) This confusion is perhaps understandable given the huge amount of pageantry and ritual that attends a coronation, while the actual accession was a sombre affair marked by mourning a dead king as much as celebrating a new queen. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the only ceremonies attending the Accession are some old blokes in fancy dress reading out a "proclamation" at various points around the Empire.[3]. Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is eligible to be Secretary of State USA

[edit]

Other questions have discussed whether or not the Secretary of State will be eligible to succeed the President. However, what are the eligibility criteria for becoming Secretary of State? Clearly Henry Kissinger was/is not a natural born US citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quidom (talk • contribs) 23:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, there are no qualifications to be Secretary of state beyond Presidential nomination followed by Senatorial confirmation. That is, the President has no restrictions on who he can nominate, and the Senate is free to confirm or not as they wish. There have been at least two Secretaries of State who were not qualified to be President; both Kissinger and Madeleine Albright. The U.S. Constitution makes no mention of qualifications for members of the Cabinet; only for President, VP, Senator, and Representatives. --Jayron32 23:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Albert Gallatin was a prominent early cabinet secretary who was frequently attacked for being "foreign"... AnonMoos (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Questions of succession or presidential eligibility have long been understood as an ongoing ambiguity in the Constitution. The 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified in part to remedy this problem, and even it didn't solve everything. Because the Supreme Court has not ruled on it specifically, it's not certain, although plenty of law review articles have been written. As to your immediate question though, I think Jayron and AnonMoos bring up examples that demonstrate that it is not a bar. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say those are the only eligibility criteria. There may be others in statute, or otherwise. Shadowjams (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually our Cabinet of the United States suggests immediate family members cannot be nominated so I think you may be right. I also wonder if there is some requirement somewhere that you be a citizen or at least hold a green card or at least be legally allowed to work in the US. E.g. do these requirements [4] also apply? Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So is it written anywhere that the Nominee must be a citizen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quidom (talk • contribs) 15:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restrictions on family members holding posts in a cabinet are based on civil-service laws, not a constitutional prohibition. Congress can amend that law or grant citizenship to a nominee if it comes down to mattering. μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in the U.S. constitution; no where does it require citizenship for anyone serving as a member of the Cabinet or as the head of an Executive Department. As noted by Medeis above, further restrictions could be (and may have been) placed on who can hold certain offices by Congress (and such restrictions can also be summarily removed or changed by a simple vote of Congress) but there is no Constitutional restrictions, merely statutory ones. --Jayron32 17:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without having researched if any of this is true, it's not a question of if it's in the Constitution or not.... if it's a statutory bar that is easily enough. Congress still has wide discretion to to define the confines of ambiguous Constitutional provisions. Shadowjams (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the OP AFAICT, never specified they were only interested in constitutional prohibitions. Speaking as a non-US American and non lawyer, I don't see any reason to assume they are only interested in constitutional prohibitions. While it's true it's far easier to modify statutory prohibitions (I presume everyone here knows that) and does not require anyone but the US Congress, and there's also the possibility the prohibitions will be held to violate the constitution (but as people have already said, the constitutional prohibitions are often ambigious anyway and it doesn't sound to me like people are actually suggesting those laws are invalid), ultimately if the current valid law of the land prohibits some people then it prohibits some people. These laws (whether statutory or constiutional) may change so people who are currently forbidden may be allowed and people who are not forbidden may be forbidden in the future, but that's an obvious fact and is largely seperate from what the current law is. While it may seem unlikely certain people will be nominated or confirmed, that is fairly airy-fairy unless perhaps it rises to the level of commonly held constitutional convention (political custom) which AFAIK are a lot less common in the US anyway. It's not like it's even exactly the same people, as I understand it and stated by others above, only the US Senate confirms the Secretary of State whereas you will need both houses (in reality by convention probably a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate) to change the law (and if the law does more than allow the nominee, it seems possible the president will veto it so you will either need an acceptable law or a veto breaking majority). In other words, we can go a lot in to what-ifs, but that doesn't seem to answer the OPs actual question of what the current law is which if you consider statutory prohibitions (which it seems to me you should) may be difficult to answer but still seems a valid question. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding cabinet member qualifications, note of course that John Kennedy appointed Robert Kennedy as United States Attorney General.Hayttom 13:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify Christian denomination with these beliefs:

[edit]

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instructions. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of a Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

There is one and only one living and true God. He is an intelligent, spiritual, and personal Being, the Creator, Redeemer, Preserver, and Ruler of the universe. God is infinite in holiness and all other perfections. God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures. To Him we owe the highest love, reverence, and obedience. The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being. . . . . .

It is the duty and privilege of every follower of Christ and of every church of the Lord Jesus Christ to endeavor to make disciples of all nations. The new birth of man's spirit by God's Holy Spirit means the birth of love for others. Missionary effort on the part of all rests thus upon a spiritual necessity of the regenerate life, and is expressly and repeatedly commanded in the teachings of Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ has commanded the preaching of the gospel to all nations. It is the duty of every child of God to seek constantly to win the lost to Christ by verbal witness undergirded by a Christian lifestyle, and by other methods in harmony with the gospel of Christ. 140.254.226.197 (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question, Ohio State, is: the Southern Baptist Convention. I just did a Google search on the first paragraph (limited automatically to 32 words by Google) and it took me to several Southern Baptist websites. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2013_August_23&oldid=1073519234"