Talk:Grandfather clause/Archive 1

Archive 1

Why here and not in WikiDictionary?

Doesn't this really belong in the WikiDictionary? And there, the entry really should be under the infinitive form: "Grandfather" -- Bill 11:30, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Deb 16:53, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I definitely do not think that this belongs only in the Wiktionary – however, I did take your suggestion that it should take a different form. I think that since the vast majority of entries in Wikipedia are nouns, an adjective like "grandfathered" should be too; so I moved it to grandfather clause. --rj, 01:56, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

i actually recomend that you watch your language when your posting somthing on a public web page if you dont mind thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.223.108 (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The origins of the term are complex. It is too long for Wiktionary. Furthermore, there are a lot of legal and historical issues involved that justify it having its own article. I do have one question though. The origin is stated to be that voting rights was passed from grandfathers. But was this actually the first use of the term?Royalcourtier (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Alternative names

This is very common in the U.S., so I'm curious to know what this is called in other countries? -- rj, 01:56, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It does happen in the UK, but I don't think we have a special term for it - or if we do, it might be some kind of specialist term that only legal experts use. Deb 18:56, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've heard the terms 'grandfather clause' and 'grandfather rights' used in the UK (specifically, in the context of licensing laws - establishments serving alcohol are usually guaranteed a continuation of their licence even if the rules change in a way that would make them ineligible). I suspect we've imported the term in the absence of one of our own. - TSP

After thinking about this for a couple of days, I finally remembered that the term came from something to do with slavery and voting rights. I looked it up and found the answer (see article), which explains why it's not well known outside the U.S. (though I did find a .com.au site using it to describe something in Australia). --rj 02:43, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

See also "sunset clause", and grace periods generally. Grandfather clauses are limited by the logical contingencies that drive them; there's one in the US constitution about who can be elected president (it's not just the native born). Sunset clauses set a time limit to allow people to adjust, like a tax holiday when a tax system changes, and these make certain that changes will happen to a known timetable. And of course there are all sorts of possible hybrids, like one of my favourites for income tax reform, age related tax breaks with a cut off age that moves with the calendar but not precisely in step with it. PML. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.210.26 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 13 August 2003

Error in dates?

These are the sentences of the last 'graph:

1. The original grandfather clauses were in laws from 1895 to 1910 in seven of the southern U.S. states as a Jim Crow law, in order to prevent blacks from voting.
2. These laws provided that anyone allowed to vote before the American Civil War, and any of their descendants, were exempt from poll taxes levied and/or supposed "literacy" tests required at the time.
3. Since the Fifteenth Amendment, granting former slaves the right to vote was not ratified until 1870, this disenfranchised blacks, but not whites.
4. It was later declared unconstitutional.
   

Unless the dates are wrong, 1 and 3 do not belong in the same paragraph. Perhaps those who edited it thru 2003 Oct 1 can figure it out without analysis of who edited what. --Jerzy 23:46, 2003 Oct 25 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot. Ellsworth 18:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Slave Trade

Not really a grandfather clause since it didn't prohbit actions that were legal at the time.

The international trade in slaves was protected by a clause in Article I of the United States Constitution which prohibited Congress from banning the "importation of such persons as the States shall think proper to admit" until 1808. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.132.117.252 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 4 September 2004

Yeah, but a grandfather clause is, usually, an exception that certain pre-existing acts or conditions will be permitted, notwithstanding a general law or rule that such acts or conditions will be prohibited. It was pretty clear at the Constitutional Convention that the African slave trade was going to be banned at some point. The slave trade clause ensured it would be permitted for a certain period. Ellsworth 22:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More generic examples?

Just seeing that there are 16 examples of grandfather clauses, 10 of which are sports-related. Seems to me there must be some more examples people can come up with in other fields. Not saying to remove the sports ones (though many of them are pretty similar), just balance it out a bit. This concept applies to all kinds of laws and rules, and it's weird to see that it's over 60% sports stuff here. -- Lurlock 17:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but anything I can think of is non-notable, and the sports ones are at least interesting. —pfahlstrom 05:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Classic cars can still be driven even though they don't have airbags, ABS etc 82.153.230.138 (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Some Australian ISPs Grandfather their plans. SO there is a fiscal example with consumer interest ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.238.120 (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I read the article and thought that it needed less examples. They are just to make the subject clear but that only requires a few carefully selected examples instead of the 50 ish here. Mtpaley (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

ex post facto clause

The constitution of the United States of America states no ex post facto bill shall be passed. In explanation, a law having a retroactive effect. Is this not "Grandfathering" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.151.195 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 29 August 2006

No, it is not. A grandfather clause is one granting exception from a law or regulation to people already using the previous regulation or something like that. For example, if my college raised tuition by 10%, but allowed all current students to keep their enrolled tution rates, that would be a form of grandfathering. Ex post facto refers to prosecuting citizens for actions commited when their actions were not illegal, but made so afterwards. --JohnM (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

They aren't the same thing, but grandfather clauses can be used to prevent an otherwise valid law from having ex post facto effects. I mentioned the concept in the law examples section. Many of the other examples seem like specific versions of this general concept. KingAlanI (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

American English?

This seems to be true only for the specific term "grandfather clause". That has 711 hits on Google for .uk sites... but an equivalent search for the term "grandfather rights" produces close on 40,000. From my own British viewpoint, I can say that while "Grandfather clause" still seems a very American term, many of the others are used regularly and without comment in UK publications. Loganberry (Talk) 01:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Carbon Trading

The last modern example needs to be clarified, as no specific relation to grandfather clauses is apparent 60.240.244.128 05:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Alcohol age restrictions

I've removed the piece about alcohol laws as it isn't really a legitimate example - you aren't going to end up with a situation where some 19-year-olds are able to drink alcohol while others are not. What is really happening in that situation is that the age is being raised gradually - to 19, then 20 a year later, then finally 21. 217.155.20.163 20:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I still tend to think it's an example of a grandfather clause...esp. with tobacco age increases. In that case (I think Jersey increased their age in '05), people born before July 1, 1988 could still purchase tobacco, whereas anybody born after that had to wait until their 19th. So, while some 18 year olds could smoke in New Jersey in 2005, others could not. Ditto with the drinking age. In Virginia at least, people born before July 1, 1966 could purchase beer on their 19th birthday (law went into effect in 1985). Anybody afterwards had to wait until age 21. So, while the drinking age did gradually increase, if somebody born in October, 1966 went into a bar in December, 1986 and asked for a PBR, they couldn't get it. Their friend who was born in June of that year could purchase as much beer as they wanted, just like anybody else. Both were 20 years old, the younger one couldn't drink! So, you had some 19-20 year olds who could drink, while others could not. Obviously some states did not do this, while most others did have some sort of grandfather clause. Those which didn't were primarily because they either raised the age up before the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 or they raised it up real late, like in 1988, when they were about to lose highway funding.

I did add it back...however, I took it out of the introduction and put it in the examples area. Seems to be a better spot for an example anyway. If you want to add that some states did not do this, have at it. I just think it's a pretty classic example of a grandfather clause. Radio-x 08:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Munich Olympics deletion

I noticed you deleted my comment about the 1972 Munich Olympic games with the comment that it was "not a legal action." However, the cancellation of events by an authority is as much a legal action as some of the things listed here. I will not put it back there myself until we get a consensus, however, I feel it should be there. Smartyshoe 16:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

addition

In 1898 Louisiana implemented a new plan. It called for a Grandfather Clause. It made all voters prove their grandfathers could vote in January 1867. No African Americans were registered voters in Louisiana then. This became part of their constitution.

02:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)~collective conscious

Sports examples

Are all these examples necessary? For a clause that began with the intent to exempt whites from provisions that disfranchised blacks, it seems rather trivial to have so many sports examples.--Parkwells (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. Pick the best example from each sport, and get rid of the other ones Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 04:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• I disagree. There's a big difference between the historical usage and current usage, and this article should fully cover both. Obviously the historical origin and context of the term needs to be explained. But the term is widely used now in other settings (noticeably, sports), and current usage has no racial connotations. To focus only on the historical usage would be very misleading.140.251.125.50 (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Matt
• I agree that the sports examples should be reduced. Can't there be another article entitled "grandfathered rules in sports" or something?

I removed the section about the NHL mandating visors from the 2006-2007 season. There is no such rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.224.77.24 (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow , a whole 1/3 of the article is about NASCAR...something tangentially related to the subject at best. It belongs on the NASCAR page, not here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.188.169 (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Since NASCAR is a sports-governing association, doesn't it seem that it should be included under Sports, and not in its own section. Cnilep (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Jim Crow Laws

The NASCAR section definitely should be removed. Also, in the first few paragraphs, the clause is described as something which prevented "blacks", mexicans, native americans, and some whites from voting. There is no source cited anywhere within the article to verify that this clause in any way discriminated against blacks. It just seems to be a general concensus among some editors here on wikipedia. I don't consider this sufficient and have removed the word 'black' from the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.57.185 (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That passage references Jim Crow laws, so you are apparently contesting the issues that: Jim Crow discriminated against blacks, it affected voting, and/or it is a grandfatherish thing. Those first two seem pretty obviously true and the wikilinked article is full of cites on all facets of the topic if you need them. But let's look at a key paragraph from it:

In the Jim Crow context, the presidential election of 1912 was steeply slanted against the interests of Black Americans. Most blacks were still in the South, where they had been effectively disfranchised, so they could not vote at all. Poll taxes and literacy requirements banned many Americans from voting, yet, said requirements had loopholes exempting White Americans from these paying the poll tax or knowing how to read. For example, in Oklahoma, anyone qualified to vote before 1866, or who is related to someone qualified to vote before 1866, was exempted from the literacy requirement; the only Americans who could vote before 1866 were, of course, White Americans, so White Americans were exempted from the literacy requirement, while all Black Americans were segregated by law. [3]

That even nails the third part in nearly perfect genealogical terms not just as a euphemism. And it's got a WP:CITE. DMacks (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh, now it's cited. Reliably. Google "grandfather clause" "jim crow" for dozens more experts and authoritative publications documenting it. DMacks (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Very Very US orrientated

Only accouple of the examples wern't from the USA, (and even then they were in the standards catagory) Just because the term originated in USA doesn't mean that it is only relevent there. I remember somthing about staircase SLope in australia. something like "No new staircases with angels greater than 45% may be built, but existing ones may remain" Heck, you could even talk aout that online MMRPG, Runescape, how no new players are allowed in classic mode. I'm sure there is a Template box thing for needs to be Moreinternational in content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxinabox (talk • contribs) 14:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Law examples

I've removed California Proposition 8 from the examples because it would be a rather poor example of 'grandfather clause' as the section it added to the constitution did not contain one; a CA Supreme Court case merely gave it effect as if it had one. (If you don't feel that distinction is important, I respectfully argue it's a debate that doesn't need to be had, since there is no shortage of canonical examples.) MilFlyboy (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

For now it's a poor example because it's been struck down. No reason to mention what it might be if it were to be enforceable unless and until it happens. DMacks (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Visors in the NHL

I removed the following text from the article:

Additionally, beginning with the 2013-14 NHL season, visors on player's helmets became mandatory, but as with the helmet law above, players who signed prior to that season who did not wear visors were grandfathered in; a report says the cutoff was for any player that had played 26 or more NHL regular-season or playoff games prior to the law being enacted could go visor-less. Any player with less than that would have to wear one.

There is currently no source for this statement. The source in the 2013-14 NHL season is unclear: another interpretation of the text in the source is that players must wear visors until they have 25 games experience in the NHL, and may subsequently choose not to wear a visor. Such interpretation would not be an example of a grandfather clause. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)