Humanities desk
< July 20	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 21

Self Verification of the Third Estate during the early days of the French Revolution

When Louis XVI called the Estates General in 1789, it set off a litany of events that would culminate in the French Revolution. My question pertains to this early period, just as the Third Estate refashions itself into the National Constituent Assembly. What did "verification" mean as it pertained to the delegates of the Estates-General and what did it mean that members of the Third Estate began to "self-verify" their delegates? My hunch is that it has to do with some sort of legitimizing process but I honestly have no idea. Any discussion on the topic would be greatly appreciated. Thank you folks in advance for your help. 2601:583:8302:1900:94E7:EE58:933B:B6BD (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the first orders of business for the Estates General was to "verify" the credentials of the participants, i.e. to ensure that the persons present were actually entitled representatives of their respective estate (the Clergy; the Aristocracy; and the Third Estate - everyone else). Traditionally each of the three estates proceeded separately with the verification of its members. The caveat is that this body had not met since 1614, so it was hardly a well-oiled functional institution. And this time, the Third Estate wished to upend things by changing the procedure to a general verification. This was based on a larger strategy, to ensure that every deputy had equal status in the assembly, and that any vote taken would be individual, and not by estate. In the latter case, the Aristocracy and the Clergy could band together and outvote the Third Estate 2-1 every time, whereas if the vote was general, the Third Estate had a slight majority and could actually influence decisions. So the debate over verification was in fact over the fundamental issue of how the whole Estates General would function. The dispute was never resolved, as the Third Estate eventually broke off and proclaimed itself a "National Assembly" while inviting dissident members from the other two estates to join them. A few did, and that was the end of the Estates General, as the National Assembly became a constitutional assembly and the Revolution began. Here's an article in French [1]. The article Estates General of 1789 is also pretty complete. Xuxl (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Example nations with civil law systems without constitution

Are there any examples of civil law systems with no constitution? Clover345 (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to article uncodified constitution, San Marino and Sweden have no one single document which can be called the constitution of those countries... AnonMoos (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, the United Kingdom has no single document that can be defined as its constitution. HiLo48 (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the OP is looking for civil law systems, which would exclude the UK (except Scotland). DuncanHill (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland is a common law country, although influenced by the continental legal system (e.g. in the office of procurator fiscal). See auld alliance for a possible reason. One spin-off is that shortly after the Gregorian calendar became widespread on the continent the Scots (in 1600) moved the start of the year to the same date (1 January) but not the same day (it was a while yet before the Protestants accepted the new Catholic calendar). 77.101.226.208 (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Us code

What is the difference between acts of congress and US code? Clover345 (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC) And also executive orders. Clover345 (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read United States Code and executive order?--Khajidha (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the legally binding laws of Congress are collected in a digest known as the United States Statutes at Large. That is a raw, chronological digest of the direct text of all laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the president. The United States Code is a subset of those laws which are general and permanent. "General" meaning "applies to the entire U.S." (i.e. not a private bill) and "permanent" meaning "standing indefinitely", (i.e. does not expire like a budget or something like that). Furthermore, the USC is organized topically into "Titles" to make searching and finding easier, whereas the USSaL is simply chronological. For most purposes, the USC is what is used to reference in legal disputes and in enforcement of the laws themselves, however technically only the text of the USSaL is legally binding in cases where the USSaL and the USC are in conflict, which is exceedingly rare. The concept of an executive order is that while the President does not have the constitutional power to make law, he does have the power to enforce laws already passed by Congress, and executive orders are a form of secondary legislation, which is how most laws work. Congress defines the general idea or limit of what it wants the executive branch to do through a law, and the President (or their designee) then decides how best to put that law into effect. So, for example, Congress may pass a law that grants the EPA authority to set limits on how much CO2 a particular power plant may put into the atmosphere, but they grant the EPA authority to set those limits based on the best available science at any given time. The EPA has the authority to set the limits, and that authority is "secondary legislation". Broadly speaking, an executive order is the highest level of secondary legislation; within the limits set by Congress and the Constitution, an executive order is a legally binding directive by the President regarding the manner in which some law is to be enforced. For example, Congress and the Constitution give the President broad authority over the military, and within the limits of that power (i.e. without violating, say, the Posse Comitatus Act), the President can decide to use the resources (money, materiel, and personnel) of the U.S. in rather broad ways; such as disaster relief or border security. Executive orders are the way the President will do that, ordering (for example) the Pentagon to re-allocate funding to construct a border wall, or direct troops to a disaster-struck area to help with the logistics of distributing food and water to needy people. --Jayron 32 13:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Code is the codification—the arrangement into a code of laws—of statutes passed by the U.S. Congress. For most laws, the Code itself is the law, whereas for some laws (especially those passed before codification but also for those that have not been the subject of a comprehensive rewrite and reenactment) the Code is the collection of statutes that have been editorially arranged in a convenient manner. This distinction is significant, though there are some that make it sound more significant than it really is (tax protestors who claim that the U.S. Code isn't "real" law and therefore doesn't have to be obeyed); basically the U.S. Code is presumptively the law, though if you can demonstrate an error in codification, you just use the bills as passed by Congress directly. Thus, by comparison, an Act of Congress is a bill passed by Congress that either enacts, amends, or repeals some statutory law.

Executive orders are, as the name indicates, orders made by the executive branch of the U.S. Government rather than laws passed by the legislative branch. While they are not law in the strict sense, they generally can only function where there is a constitutionally-viable delegation of authority (see the J.W. Hampton case) which the order or regulation is carrying out. This may include, for example, emergency powers acts, which have been of great interest in recent months; while an executive order pursuant to such an act isn't really law, it carries the force of law because it is authorized by law. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So in simple terms, is USC just a way of organising the acts? A bit like organising a library of books? Or is there more to it than that? Clover345 (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. It provides a uniform method of citation and knowing the statute you’re citing is reasonably up-to-date. And for those statutes that directly enact or amend titles or sections of the Code, it is the law. And even for those laws that are technically independent of the Code, I can’t even begin to tell you how awful it is to find and cite laws when there’s no codification. It is truly, truly time-consuming. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The US Code is the integrated version of the effective text of the laws as of right now. A particular law may have been passed in 1817, and then had a portion removed in 1876, and another portion added in 1895, and its limitations expanded in 1924. Each of those changes would usually be of the format "the text <blabbity blah> in law number whatever is stricken" or "the phrase "blabbity blah" is inserted into law number whatever at such and such a point" or the word "foo" is replaced with the word "bar", they would rarely (if ever) present the full text. So, if in 2020 I want to know what law number whatever actually covers, I would have to find each of those individual laws and apply each of the changes. Hoping that I didn't miss any. OR I could look it up in the US Code where this has already been done and checked by professionals. --Khajidha (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All this was explained 48 minutes after the question was asked!

Executive order is an order made by Donald Trump (in the present administration). "US Code" is an indexed book of laws. An "Act of Congress" is a piece of legislation. One would be needed to amend the Code. In this country there is also delegated legislation (regulations are made under an enabling statute and have the force of law). This is not unusual.

- 2A00:23C5:E117:6100:4B6:FE3C:395C:BF95 09:54, 21 July 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.35.118.67 (talk)

Lily of the Valley

In the name of this flower, where or what does the word 'valley' refer to? Thanks. Omidinist (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the flower is a reference to the Song of Songs.--Khajidha (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am the rose of Sharon, and the lily of the valleys.

2. As the lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters.

3. As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.

Song of Solomon 2:1-3 Alansplodge (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I spent many hours to find that. Omidinist (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could have looked at the Wiktionary entry. The scientific name Convallaria majalis also refers to valleys: Latin convallis means "valley", and the translation of the first line of the Hebrew text as found in the Vulgate is Ego flos campi, et lilium convallium. Only the last part is literally translated. --Lambiam 15:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's also mentioned in Lily of the Valley, though only rather obscurely, in the Christian_traditions section. The article should perhaps mention that it's not (at least botanically) a lily. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not lily; it's muguet. Omidinist (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between corporate and public policy

What are the main differences between corporate policy and public or government policy in terms of substance and what is contained within each document? I know in high level terms one is the position or guiding set of principles for a private company and the other for a public organisation or Government. But what do those differences look like on paper? Is one based on the broad research and views of society and it’s organisations Whilst the corporate one is more based on company values and shareholder wishes? Clover345 (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This question is virtually unanswerable. In general, different organizations (whether public or private) will have different objectives and are subject to different constraints on how they may endeavour to achieve these objectives. These differences may be stark. They will be reflected in differences in their policies. Whether an organization is for profit or not may be more important than whether it is public or private. Another important policy issue is to what extent they are accountable for their actions, and if so to whom. --Lambiam 21:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any specific "documents" that comprise either general public policy or corporate policy within specific corporations. There may be documents or sources to which policymakers refer, but there's certainly no canon of government policy. The policy is set by lawmakers. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]