Humanities desk
< September 14	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 16 >

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.

September 15[edit]

US Politics question[edit]

Are the politics of Charlie Crist and Chris Christie quite similar? Are Crist and Christie ideologically the same? --Stonebobhitipn (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, because of their naming conventions, are they related biologically? --Stonebobhitipn (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read the articles you linked.

Regarding politics: Charlie Crist is currently a Democrat, and Chris Christie a Republican. They are, when American politics is viewed in isolation, opposites. Charlie Crist supports President Obama's economic policies, Chris Christie disagrees with Obama on almost everything except the Federal government helping with disaster relief in New Jersey (Christie doesn't mind letting other states fend for themselves, however).

Regarding the name: No, Crist and Christie are different surnames, even if they're derived from "Christ." They might possibly share an ancestor within the past 2000 years, but it's still just as likely that I'm related to either of them. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we even really know what your family name is? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Charlie Crist only joined the Democratic Party in 2012 and was a Republican most of his career. As for differences, Crist is lean and slender, while Christie is . . . not. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No relation to to the Mr. Christie who made good cookies, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer! I am from Slovenia so I do not understand USA politics too well. I love USA --Stonebobhitipn (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enkratna kot prvi poljub! μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Unique as a first kiss"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 19:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who's wondering: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 August 25#Slovenian question. Deor (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We also should mention Lou Christie. Bus stop (talk) 07:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

satellite uplink pornography[edit]

What corporation uplinks pornography to satellites and what site is used for this?166.177.251.76 (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who (if anyone) might do so today... but this LA Times article and this UK article discuss companies that did so back in the 1990s (and governmental reactions to them doing so). Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this Exxxstasy Network is a different one, but satellite TV is still one of its platforms. Part of TEN Broadcasting. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could a US state declare its independence?[edit]

Without triggering a civil war, could a US state just become independent? --31.177.99.241 (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that by "just" you mean "without the consent of any other government".

Whether there would actually be a civil war is a matter of speculation, and we aren't supposed to speculate here.

However, it is true that nothing in the U.S. Constitution says the union is perpetual, and on the other hand nothing says that states have the right to leave. In 1861–65 the federal government fought the American Civil War on the grounds that states did not have the right to leave, and this may be seen as establishing a precent. Also, the Constitution superseded the earlier Articles of Confederation between the 13 original states, which did describe the union as perpetual, and it may be argued that this was the intent even though it was no longer stated explicitly, and still applies. --65.95.178.150 (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A right to Self-determination exists worldwide, including in treaties ratified by the United States. International circumstances also matter here. Other precedents exist, such as the Scottish independence referendum, 2014. Declaring war on people becoming peacefully becoming independent would likely cause international anger against the US. It is possible the US would not recognise independence, but like areas such as Kosovo or Transnistria a state could become de facto independent. See also the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence and Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence In Respect of Kosovo AusLondonder (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Scottish case is a good precedent for a more hostile case. Whatever the feelings and controversy, the government of the UK ultimately decided to allow such a referendum. They could have changed their mind after the result was yes, but even if they had, we have no idea how that would have played out. I don't think there can be any doubt that if the goverment (whatever part is needed, executive, legislature, whatever) agreed to allow the independence, there obviously could be independence. Catalonia is a better example, since the central government in that case is clearly still fairly hostile to Catalan independence. We still don't really know how that's going to play out, presuming they get sufficient support from within Catalonia. But one difference with that case, is that Spain is bound by the agreements they signed as part of the EU and the Council of Europe, including the European Convention on Human Rights and binding judgements from the European Court of Human Rights. Nil Einne (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "right to Self-determination" tends to be countered (officialy or otherwise) by the concept Territorial integrity. Over-seas colonies that are only part of another country's territory because they were invaded tend to get a lot of sympathy when they want to break away (these days at least). Territories that more obviously physically part of another country, and have been for a long time, less so. Also, to be cynical, it could be that lots of countrys are sympathetic to decolonization movements because they don't have colonies of their own. Whereas lots of countries have internal seperatist movements, and fear that supporting other such movements would encourage their own separatists. Iapetus (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One friend of mine argues that the phrase "a more perfect union" clearly and unambiguously implies an intent of perpetuity. I retort, it's likely no accident that the perpetual language of the Articles was omitted in 1787: irrevocability would make ratification a harder sell. —Tamfang (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A unilateral declaration without triggering negative effects, up to and including a war? No. Any independence has to be carefully negotiated and multilateral. This applies to all countries, you simply don't get to leave without permission if you don't want a fight. Why? It's not just about being "owned" by the rest of the country, there are substantial rights issues and debt issues to be hashed out. For example, if Texas wants to secede, they have to negotiate things like citizenship rights, what happens to those who don't want to leave the U.S., what happens to sovereign debts held by the Texan government (and things the U.S. owes to Texas and Texans, like Social Security), what happens to U.S. military facilities and hardware in Texas, what currency Texas uses, where the border between the countries should be (especially important when dealing with Gulf oil fields), what agreements Mexico has with the U.S. that must now be renegotiated with an independent Texas, etc. This requires complex and careful bilateral negotiation. If they just declared independence, yes, a conflict, possibly a war, would follow, and logically so.

If a state can unilaterally declare independence without causing conflict, then the entity they were declaring independence from is a dead man walking anyway (e.g. the later stages of the collapse of the Soviet Union). --Golbez (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legally no, see Texas v. White. Jayron 32 03:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The exact quote is:

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States." Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 725 (1868), overruled on other grounds by Morgan v. United States, 113 U.S. 476 (1885).

So the answer is no. GregJackP Boomer! 09:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about non-state US territories, such as Puerto Rico or Guam, could they leave the Union without major ructions? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only aware of one time a territory tried to up and leave. It did not work out. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What the Supremes said in Texas v White could be undone by a later Supreme Court ruling, just as the Dred Scott ruling or Plessy v Ferguson are superseded. Similarly, typical wedding vows say "until death us do part" but a large portion of marriages in the US end in divorce before not too many years have gone by. If a state enters a union and no part of the ratification says it is permanent, then it is understandable they might think it can be abrogated or dissolved. The Texas v White terms were added to the contract after it was signed, and are therefore questionable. Edison (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Philippines eventually got its independence, though, without a real ruckus in the US. I think a territory could, though it is surpassingly unlikely by any military means. Congress could pass legislation granting the territory its independence or the Senate could ratify a treaty with the new country after the president recognized it. Territories, especially ones unlikely to ever get statehood, such as Guam, aren't really considered in the Constitution, which led to some opposition to their acquisition and the debate about whether the Constitution follows the flag. So their departure doesn't strain the Union.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hard - and - fast rule. Singapore announced it would secede from Malaysia and did so. Biafra seceded from Nigeria and war followed. Southern Rhodesia declared independence and was sanctioned. Anguilla declared independence and was invaded. Western Australia toys with the idea of becoming independent from the Commonwealth. If they went ahead I don't see soldiers from Eastern States coming over to form an army of occupation. East Bengal secured independence from Pakistan after a fight. Spain seized Olivenca from Portugal in the eighteenth century - apart from that the border has been stable for a thousand years. Portugal wants it back. If the Olivencans decided to return there would probably be military action by Spain. The treaty that set up the European Monetary Union has no provision for states to secede, however in practice, if a country doesn't follow the rules it is likely to be ejected. 89.240.30.154 (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.30.121 (talk) [reply]

Members of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands left but their status was always different. Rmhermen (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unincorporated territories of the United States are not really in the Union, they are under the jurisdiction of the Union. That's an important distinction: an imperfect analogy may be the difference between a company's employee, and an independent contractor hired by the company. There are legal distinctions between the rights and responsibilities of members of an group, and those who merely have a partial, temporary, or ephemeral association with it. --Jayron 32 18:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]