Humanities desk
< June 7	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 9 >

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.

June 8

Political

Has there ever been a United states President charged with obstruction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edperk1964 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you're including impeachments. See Nixon and Clinton. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nixon was not impeached. (He resigned first.) --76.69.46.228 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in Impeachment process against Richard Nixon, he resigned because he was going to be impeached and likely convicted. In effect, he convicted himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that a sitting president can't be charged with anything while he or she is still in office? Like if Trump robs a bank in broad daylight, they would have to impeach him, try him in the Senate, and install Pence as president before they could hand Trump over to the FBI? I've been hearing stuff like that in the news regarding the Russiagate stuff but it seems weird to me. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not prohibited by the Constitution, but the DOJ has a policy against it, so Trump cannot be indicted at the federal level while he's in office.[1] That's not to say a state couldn't give it a try. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bugs. That link was probably not the one you wanted, but I get the idea. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of Google hits on the subject, and I might have been conflating a couple of them. But consensus is that it's long-standing DOJ policy, and since the DOJ is the one investigating federal crimes, then it stands as is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Former US Vice President and then-sitting US Senator was indicted for treason by a US Federal Court and declared a traitor by the US Senate, but he was apparently never tried or convicted. His treason was joining the Confederate Army in 1861 after the civil war started. He later returned to the US under an amnesty for former Confederates extended in 1868. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutionally speaking, anyone and everyone on the Confederate side could have been tried for treason, if the Union victors really wanted to push the issue. As for VP, Congressmen, etc., they have no DOJ protection. Spiro Agnew, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with everyone, of course, is that millions of people would have been liable to trial, but there wouldn't have been much point, especially since federal trials must be held in the state and district in which the crime allegedly occurred, and it wouldn't have been particularly likely that a jury would convict their neighbors of a crime for which they themselves were likely to be arrested. The only practical route would have been to try a few prominent individuals; this was planned for Jefferson Davis (see Jefferson Davis#Imprisonment), but a trial never happened; basically everyone was amnestied in 1868 (as 173.228.123.207 notes) as a means of reconciliation for the country, and while Davis wasn't included, two months later the relevant federal prosecutor dropped charges. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From a practical standpoint, they would have followed whatever process would get the leaders convicted. Instead, they forgave them. Kind of the Gerald Ford approach with Nixon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Throne of England

The article Throne of England says that it is the throne of the Monarch of England, but it doesn't say much of anything about the actual throne or have any pictures of it other than one from the 19th century in a building that it says was destroyed by fire. Similarly, Crown of England redirects to a list of English monarchs. Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom otoh has a nice picture of St. Edward's Crown near the top, and the Imperial State Crown further down.

So is there an actual "official" throne these days? Is anyone other than the monarch allowed to sit in it? Does the incumbent monarch ever actually use it, either for state functions or just sitting around the palace? Is there some reason Throne room#United_Kingdom doesn't have good pictures of the throne(s)? Thanks. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This may help answer.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that does help. I still think the articles should have pictures. While posting the question I spun an imaginary theory that the lack of pictures might be for security reasons, because of the ancient law that says a pretender to the throne can become the actual monarch by sword-fighting their way to the throne room and sitting down on the true throne. (They also have to have already seized the Crown and Sceptre, which were stored in separate rooms guarded by separate sets of monsters). The final challenge is that the throne room turns out to contain dozens of thrones and they have to identify the right one. Most sit on the biggest and fanciest and most jeweled one, which triggers a trap door dropping the pretender into an oubliette. The real throne is a very crude and ugly wooden thing made before the Norman Conquest, like the Holy Grail that Indiana Jones drinks from in the Raiders of the Lost Ark sequel. So that is why there are no photos. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "throne" of England. It's simply not a significant concept to the Monarchy of England. Monarchs do need to sit down, and so they have a variety of thrones available. A new one has been made for each. One has a little extra significance, as it's in the House of Lords and is from where the Queen delivers her speech at the State Opening of Parliament. But it's still just a chair. There is no significance to sitting upon it. It's not Excalibur – you don't become the new king just by parking your arse on the royal velvet.

King Edward's Chair isn't a throne (nor is King Edward VII's chair!). The British monarchy is recognised as the monarch wherever they sit. However they are traditionally crowned in King Edward's Chair, which is of no inherent significance, other than it used to contain the Scottish Stone of Scone, which is essential for the coronation of a Scottish monarch. But once they're crowned, they can sit anywhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andy. Yes, I had gotten a bit confused and forgotten the traditional practice of having a watery tart lobbing scimitars to choose the monarch. That was interesting about the Stone of Scone. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The distribution of executive power as exemplified by an arbitrary distribution of cutlery by some moistened bint is the most sensible idea to hit British politics in the last few years. It is so much better than the Cheech-and-Chong stories that it has turned into this week. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you liked the Scone of Stone, then don't miss Edward VII's chair. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, that reminds me of the bicycle-like thing from South Park.[3] 173.228.123.207 (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's no basis for a system of government! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]