Humanities desk
< April 29	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	Current desk >

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.

April 30[edit]

When did the Orleans-Galliera line give up their claim to the French throne?[edit]

When did Antoine, Duke of Montpensier and/or his male-line descendants (the Orléans-Galliera line) give up their claim to the (now defunct) French throne? They're not in the Orléanist line of succession to the French throne right now even though Antoine's male line still exists right now (see here: List of living legitimate male Capetians#House of Orléans-Galliera). Thus, when exactly did Antoine and/or his male-line descendants give up their claim to the French throne? Futurist110 (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to Line of succession to the French throne (Orléanist)#Family Compact of 1909 "The Orléans claimants and their supporters consider excluded from the succession to the throne the foreign descendants of King Louis-Philippe: the Brazilian House of Orléans-Braganza (descendants of the Comte d'Eu) and the Spanish Orléans-Galliera (descendants of Antoine, Duke of Montpensier).[9][10]" Perhaps the sources 9 & 10 so linked there explain more. --Jayron 32 12:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll check those sources out--if I had not already done so. I might have already previously looked at these sources; please let me check, though. Futurist110 (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does the US Congress have the authority to create a constitution for Washington DC?[edit]

Does the US Congress have the authority to create a constitution for Washington DC if so desired? Obviously this hypothetical Washington DC constitution would be subordinate to the US Constitution, if you're curious. Basically, it would be just like a state constitution, but for Washington DC. Futurist110 (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by a Constitution? They pretty much do so; by law the Congress is supreme authority in the District, though they have devolved powers to the district to elect their own council and mayor; Congress still reserves ultimate authority. There are certainly documents that outline the role of the government of DC. So there already exists a constitution for the district. That's what a constitution is: the rules for the running of the government. The District of Columbia Home Rule Act is the enabling legislation. --Jayron 32 11:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the OP thinks that a constitution must always be something that is more difficult to change than "ordinary" laws. Or that it must be something which can override any "ordinary" law. Or both. In reality none of those have to be the case. Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A constitution, though, is not a set of magical "super laws". It's something else entirely: it's the manner in which a polity is organized and the rules it follows. It's a description of how laws are made, not a law itself, It is often called the "Supreme Law" or "Basic Law", c.f. Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, but that kind of description makes it sound like their laws that we REALLY REALLY don't want to be changed. Like, just the super important rules. But that's not what constitutions do. The government makes laws for the people to follow. The constitution tells the government how it is supposed to make those laws. The existence of any polity implies the existence of a constitution (even an unwritten one). A constitution can be as simple as "The king does whatever he wants", but that's still a constitution; it's still the way in which laws get made. Insofar as the District of Columbia is a polity (i.e. it has a government that passes and enforces laws) then it has a constitution. In the case of DC, those principles for how it does so are laid out by the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. --Jayron 32 15:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article I linked describes what a constitution actually is. Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was supporting you, not disagreeing with you. --Jayron 32 16:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geopolitics: US supply chain of electronics in case of war[edit]

If the US went to war with say, China, would its supply chain of electronics, especially computers, be affected? How can the US make sure such an essential resource for the economy will still be available? Doroletho (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you examine historic examples, the US would initially make no attempt to continue supply. It is a war of attrition. Can the US population last without new electronics longer than the Chinese can last without producing and selling them? Then, there is an alternate strategy that the US has used: Taiwan. Refuse to accept "Made in China" products, but freely accept "Made in Taiwan" products. The manufacturers in China send everything through Taiwan and then to the US. 68.115.219.139 (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems extremely unlikely the US could easily buy products from Taiwan if they were actually at war with China. Well at least not unless and until the US starts to win and the war is now only on Chinese territory. (Of course in the age of nuclear weapons, it's not clear if it will ever be like that.) I assume the OP meant an actual war with significant real military engagements and not a cold war or theoretical war (like how some people describe the Korean situation for example) or similar since that seems to be the implication of their question. Nil Einne (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In a proper war, yes, supply chains are affected. We haven't had to deal with that in many decades, war has become virtually a spectator sport for most of the civilian population. Think back to how much rationing went on during WW2, or the fact that Japan got 80% of its oil from the U.S. - and that was embargoed just five months before Pearl Harbor. --Golbez (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Japan, the country has no substantial petroleum or natural gas reserves, so it imports basically all of those resources. Obtaining such resources was a major factor in Japan's desire to expand into Southeast Asia and Siberia. Here's a great brochure on energy in Japan today: as shown, most of its oil and natural gas today is from the Middle East or Australia. See also Energy in Japan. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notre-Dame fire.[edit]

I been seeing all these image-memes on Facebook about how the U.S. government / Trump won't donate to Puerto Rico or Flint disasters, but they will to the Notre-Dame fire. Our article on Notre-Dame_de_Paris_fire#Fundraising shows a list and does not include the U.S. government, however, then I saw the table only goes down to 10M. Are there any tables that show significantly further less than 10M? 67.175.224.138 (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]

The U.S. government, as the government, has made no pledges of cash to rebuilding Notre Dame. Near as I can tell, only two pledges have been made. 1) Trump has pledged to give personally from his own funds,[1] and 2) Trump has pledged "U.S. expertise" to help rebuild; i.e. personnel.[2]. As far as I know, the U.S. government has not pledged any such cash. Most of the memes I have seen regarding this topic neither mention Trump nor the U.S. government; rather they call out any of the large private donors for not donating to the causes you note, like this one and this one. --Jayron 32 16:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Child removal in Sweden[edit]

Do we currently have an article on governmental policy of forcible removal of children from parents and taking them to foster families instead (e.g. as described here in Sweden)? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article you linked to is about the UK, where the Children Act 1989 is the principle piece of legislation for England & Wales. Other relevant articles include foster care, residential care and child and family services. We do not appear to have any relevant articles specifically about Sweden. I would just add that in my experience of working with looked-after and in-care children in the UK, many would have benefited greatly from being removed from their families rather earlier than they in fact were. It's a difficult area, and the article you linked to rather shallow. DuncanHill (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: you meant "principal piece of legislation". --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From Human Rights and Child Protection in Norway and Sweden, Study of Official Reports, Joar Tranøy, Stockholm University. Machine translation extract:

Child Protection Law in Sweden Today, the child welfare service in Sweden is regulated in the main ak of the Social Services Act (1980: 620, SoL) as is based on the volunteer and law (1990: 52) on special provisions on care of young people (LVU), which contains the sources for the use of force. SoL is essentially one framework law that specifies material standards for the municipality's social service. It contains few rules on the design of the social service or about child welfare in particular (Strömberg, 1999: 127). The case processing of forced decisions within barnevernet is regulated mainly by its own process laws for the administrative courts. Best reminders about coercion within the child welfare service were transferred to own law on the care of young people of 1988. Then it became a clearer distinction between volunteers decisions and forced decisions. A so-called holistic view was used. It meant that they various municipal committees as before had handled each of the old laws area, was merged into a committee, Socialnäman, who dealt with all kinds of cases. This however, was changed with the new communeloven of 1991 (the Local Government Act, 1991: 900) as introduced greater degree of municipal self-government. As long as they municipal tasks are carried out, the municipalities are now free to organize easily they want (Hammar, Norström and Thunved, 1998: 9). The social welfare committee consists mostly of 15-20 members. Municipal Control one determines the number members. At least half of the members must be present for the board to be quorum. Members have one vote each, and simple majority is sufficient to make decisions. The committee members can raise issues of their own initiative and the board meets if the mayor considers it necessary or a tr part of the committee members demand it. During the meeting, the committee members review the case documents. The private matters in one child welfare cases, possibly with lawyers, have re to meet personally before deciding on the case hit. It is not common to pray rn under 15 years are present. If they do private parties are present They asked if they have anything to add and get in that case or speak orally to the board. Parties' lawyers or representatives, as child welfare services service is usually represented by one by their officials (Social board The election, 1995: 30), chooses for himself e parts of the case they want to emphasize and at all mention below negotiations. According to the National Board of Health and Welfare's examination of cases from 1993, the social welfare committee was represented by lawyerin 31 of the 238 cases at court level. It was great geographical differences. In Stockholm, there was a public party lawyer in 69% of cases, while the figure for Gothenburg was 12 percent (Socialstyrelsen, 1995: 68). The same survey from 1993 shows that in four investigated county courts, the social welfare committee received average of 80% of cases. The locals the variations were great dishes between: from 50 to 97% (Socialstyrelsen, 1995: 70). DroneB (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant article in Swedish Wikipedia is Lag med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga. DroneB (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]