Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 January 28

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.

January 28

French noblewoman

I read a while ago about a French noblewoman (possibly a Queen or princess, I don't remember) who had bad eyesight. Which one was this? THanks. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette, although her article apparently doesn't say anything about it...hmm, we'll have to dig further. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This online biography says; "The Conciergerie prison was the antechamber to death. In this dank prison, she lost much weight and her eyesight began to fail, but she did not have long to live.". Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC) This forum asserts that she "always had delicate eyes and was shortsighted, lost sight in one eye during her stay in the damp cell in the Conciergerie". It gives Edmond de Goncourt's biography "Histoire de Marie-Antoinette" as the source, which you can download here, free but in French. Bon chance, mon ami! Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

1963 Philippine Scouting tragedy

I was just reading 11th World Scout Jamboree. It mentions the loss of the whole Philippine contingent in an aeroplane crash. Do we have an article about this (there isn't one in the relevant aviation category), or failing that can anyone link me to any online articles about it? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

After having performed an extensive "site:en.wikipedia.org" search, I'm pretty certain there is no article (but I could be wrong, of course). There's a bit more under Boy Scouts of the Philippines. Off-wiki, I found "Remembering the 'Boy-Scout' Filipino Tragedy of July 28, 1963". ---Sluzzelin talk 04:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, have started to find a few more, there's a picture of the Quezon City memorial on this page, and another article here. I couldn't find anything on the Filipino wikipedia. Anyone know Filipino and want to ask at their RefDesks? I'd start writing an article but might get a bit emotional so if anyone else feels like starting it that'd be OK with me. DuncanHill (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's no article on the Tagalog Wikipedia either, largely because there's not a lot of readily-available literature on the incident. If you intend to write an article on it, your best bet would be looking through the newspaper archives of the National Library of the Philippines. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There's quite a lot of results on Google; not sure it's much use for an article. Alansplodge (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I vaguely remember having read something about the events in the 1963 Jamboree newspapers. Unfortunately, these are in my association's archives now, so I can't cite them. --jergen (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Started an article at United Arab Airlines Flight 869 (1963) MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you everyone, I appreciate this so much. DuncanHill (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"The Crown" and God

Is it right to say that The Crown derives its power from God -- that God grants the royal family the right to rule through the crown? --CGPGrey (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, not everyone believes in the Divine right of kings nowadays. In most monarchies, the right to rule is granted by secular law. Pais (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess what I'd like to know is it still technically true that God delegates power to the crown. --CGPGrey (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Was it ever technically true? Wasn't it always a matter of faith, which backed up (or was backed up by) what the secular law said? Pais (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point that's it a matter of faith. Is it written anywhere in British Common law or the legal structure of the crown that it's power is derived from God? --CGPGrey (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The UK has lots of unwritten laws. It is called a "constitutional monarchy," but I have never been able to find the "Constitution" of the UK, comparable to the one in the US. The Divine Right of Kings has certainly been asserted by the government in power at times in history, as in the early 17th century, though largely nullified by the Cromwell regime in the late 17th century. In earlier centuries it was used to justify why a few should be powerful, live in palaces and eat elegant food from golden plates, while many should live in hovels and be half starved while they work the land as serfs. Edison (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

See Constitution of the United Kingdom. From the intro: Unlike many nations, the UK has no core constitutional document. It is therefore often said that the country has an unwritten, uncodified, or de facto constitution. However, the word "unwritten" is something of a misnomer as much of the British constitution is embodied in the written form, within statutes, court judgments, and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions and royal prerogatives. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

British coins still say "D.G. REG." (by the grace of God, Queen) but as Pais says, since the Act of Settlement, it's by the grace of Parliament and by extension, the people of the UK. Alansplodge (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Act of Settlement is a disambiguation page - which one are you referring to? -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The Archbishop of Canterbury delegates spiritual authority to her at the coronation by crowning her, so she has the authority of the Church of England, but he's not God. However, the coronation is largely a formality as she is already Queen before coronation, and her position is guaranteed by the various laws governing succession to the throne: see succession to the British throne.

Regarding the question, it's debatable if monarch actually has any power: in the UK's constitutional monarchy most of the important decisions are made by parliament (the Queen's presence in e.g. the legal system is purely conventional). You could ask questions about the source of legitimacy as Queen, and questions about the source of her popular support - the latter is probably due more to her personality than to being anointed with holy oil. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The OP probably wants to read the articles absolute monarchy, of which there are very few today (Saudi Arabia and the Vatican City spring to mind), and Constitutional monarchy, of which nearly all modern monarchies fit to one degree or another. Other than the Vatican, and maybe Lichtenstein, all European monarchies are highly democratic constitutional monarchies where the monarch holds little to no real power. --Jayron32 15:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

From our List of absolute monarchies, it looks like today there is only the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom of Swaziland, and the Vatican City State (which is an "elected" absolute monarchy). But, as already recommended, our Divine right of kings article is probably what the OP would like to read on this question. WikiDao ☯ 15:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The so-called "divine right of kings" is a terrible perversion of Christian doctrine. Compare: "Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God. If anyone serves, they should do so with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ."^[1] If Jesus is a king of kings, then consider "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God"^[2] I think that Leo Tolstoy and Christian anarchists in general have had a better understanding of the principle of divine authority. Wnt (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The divine right of kings is a terrible perversion of Christian doctrine? That just might be a somewhat new interpretation. Romans 13:1 Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God. The articles Render unto Caesar... and Christianity and politics seem to be interesting. Flamarande (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"There is no authority except from God" has been interpreted in more than one way, and the one suggesting that every brute who picks up a weapon to bully his fellows has divine authority seems most unlikely. Rendering Caesar's coins to Caesar does not mean absolute subservience - it just means that they're his coins, so give them back. (In light of the tradition that man was made in God's image, it is also a powerful analogy) Obviously the first Christian martyrs did not believe that the Romans had a divine right to make them offer sacrifices and deny their beliefs. Wnt (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That's sort-of one opinion on the matter, but that line of thinking has a lot of attractiveness for many Christians. You can see it in the popularity of Prosperity theology, which is really just a modern take on the same theology behind the Divine Right of Kings. As a Christian, I generally agree with you that my personal reading of the Bible leads me to the same conclusions you have. As a human, I don't find it useful to make perjorative statements about others who have arrived at different conclusions. --Jayron32 17:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

In the Coronation service, some effort has been made to compare the kings of England (or later the UK) with the ancient kings of Israel who had more obvious divine credentials. The verse "Zadoc the priest and Nathan the prophet annointed Solomon king" (from 1 Kings 1:45) has been used since the time of St Dunstan who is thought to have been the original author the service last used in 1953. Whether you believe this is Biblical authority or not is (nowadays at least) a matter of religious freedom. Alansplodge (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've wondered idly from time to time whether Basilikon Doron contained any reference to 1 Samuel chapter 8... -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding a link for those who don't know it off by heart. Alansplodge (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The Queen has a different official title for each of her 16 realms. In 15 of those cases, the words "by the Grace of God" is part of her title. The odd man out is Papua New Guinea. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Four Loko

• Four (energy drink)

Starting weeks prior to the FDA ruling, many fans and others seeking financial gain purchased large quantities of the drink. This buying rush quickly created a black market for the drink, with many sellers charging nearly FIVE TIMES the drink's retail price.

I have never had any caffeinated alcoholic beverage. But how do these caffeinated alcoholic energy drinks differ from traditional liqueur coffee drinks? If these drinks are banned or discouraged, why couldn't their drinkers make liqueur coffee by themselves? Why couldn't they mix ordinary Red Bull with, say, vodka or gin? (I know Red Bull + alcohol kills.) -- Toytoy (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

They can. That doesn't mean they should. People can drink bleach, too, if they wanted too, but that doesn't mean it should be marketed as a beverage. I think that's the idea behind banning it. As for coffee liqueurs, they likely have relatively small amounts of caffeine as compared to Four Loko. And we do mix rum with Coke, too. Coke has caffeine. Aaronite (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

See caffeinated alcohol drinks ban. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of this ban? If both coffee and alcohol are allowed, everyone can mix them up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's too bad the article doesn't have context. There are two basic views on this. One is that this is typical "omg the kids are drinking" hysteria. There's probably some truth to that — we have this kind of moral panic every few years. But the other view is that the accessibility of these particular drinks, their high caffeine content, and their "non-alcoholic" taste (which apparently is sickly sweet) had led to a lot more instances of alcohol poisoning, blackouts, and other very unpleasant effects than is usually the case with beer or traditional cocktails. The question about whether people could do something similar is not really germane — what we are concerned about is what people do, not what they could do. I'm of the opinion that if the epidemiological data says, "these sorts of drinks really do lead people to harm themselves in ways they aren't really meaning to," then perhaps we ought to consider them to be a problem and a health risk. (If people start using a hair dryer in a way that kills them, even though if it was used 100% according to instructions it would be mostly safe, I would still consider the hair dryer dangerous. What matters is actual use patterns, not idealized or hypothetical use patterns.) In this particular case, I'm not sure the data is there — it might just be hype. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The theory [3] is that "people have no idea how inebriated they really are". Presumably this lack of awareness of how inebriated they're going to get is motivating people to pay huge prices for it on the black market? I'm not clear on that point. 81.131.10.161 (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It makes more sense if you don't assume that the purchasers are going to drink it themselves, but will instead give it to other people whom will not realize how inebriated they are going to get. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

As a UK resident this seems completely, if you'll pardon the pun, loco. A common drink over here is Red Bull and the spirit of your choice (vodka, Southern Comfort etc) - and premixed vodka/energy drink bottles are very common in pubs (bars), clubs, off licenses (liquor stores) and supermarkets. Exxolon (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What Do Turks newspaper say about Germany?

Since some months, in the German press, we can read every now and then insulting analysis about Muslims and their supposed low IQ. (This was caused by Thilo Sarrazin, see Thilo_Sarrazin#Controversy. That's like the discussion arisen by The_bell_curve, with Muslims (principally Turks) instead of Blacks, and more explicitly hateful.) Can someone summarize what the Turk press is saying about it, if they are saying something at all? Quest09 (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about Turkish media reports specifically, but here is a recent article of relevance. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a relevant article from the English-language version of a Turkish newspaper. Here is the search that I did to find it. Marco polo (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Denmark in Iraq/Afghanistan

I'm trying to determine Denmark's role if any in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I know they were participating at some point, and I thought I read somewhere that they flew sorties in one of the invasions, but I'm not sure their exact participation in the preliminary months of each war. Any help would be great, with sources even better. Grsz 11 17:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan (2001–present) lists a total commitment of 750 troops for Denmark. Not to diminish the commitment those 750 troops have made and the risk that they (and their country) have put their lives under, but as a portion of the total allied fighting force, it just may be that they have made a large enough impact to be noticed by many English-language sources. If you can read Danish, you may be able to find more at the Danish Wikipedia... --Jayron32 18:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Also take a look at Operation Enduring Freedom, Coalition casualties in Afghanistan#Danish, Operation Achilles, Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2006#NATO expands in southern Afghanistan, Operation Hammer (Afghanistan), Danish International Logistical Center, Multinational Division Central-South, Dancon/Irak, Royal Danish Air Force, Operation Red Dagger and Royal Danish Army. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

See also Armadillo (film). P. S. Burton (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sell off the royals

The UK government is intending to sell off the UKs publicly owned forests to raise £100 million.

a) If all the various royal palaces were sold off (under similar terms), how much would they fetch?

b) For each of the royals who gets a state handout, how many times is that state handout more than the average UK income?

c) What is the total amount of all the state handouts and subsidies, and costs of the free rent and helicopter rides etc, given to the royals per year?

d) Does any other democracy give a greater amount to royalty? Thanks 92.24.186.58 (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about doing the sums - it's not going to happen - they're Conservatives for goodness sake! But for the sake of a good argument, the Civil List which is the Government's direct "handout" to the Royals is £7.9m. You can set that against £200m earned by the Crown Estates which goes into the public purse every year. The £7.9m doesn't include police or military security but does include transport I believe. By comparison, the EU President, a certain Herman van Rompuy costs the taxpayer £22m per year according to this. So were not getting a bad deal. And if we didn't have a Queen, we'd have to employ a failed politician as a president at a rather similar cost. He'd still need a couple of palaces for entertaining foriegners etc - well Germany does anyway. Fancy Tony Blair or Michael Portillo instead? Alansplodge (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I found a Telegraph article [4] "Buckingham Palace valued at close to £1 billion", which also puts Windsor Castle at £180 million. Finances of the British Royal Family says the queen is on nearly £8 million. Civil list makes the observation that the crown estate "generates revenue of around £190 million for HM Treasury every year", if you consider that relevant. Income in the United Kingdom if Splodge hasn't got there first gives a (rather outdated) mean income of £22,800 per year, although the point of comparing this to royal income escapes me, since the average private income isn't a state handout. Monarchy of Norway#Finances says they're on £6.3 million (according to google's currency conversion), but they were given £54.14 million about 12 years ago to do their gaffs up, which if spread out over every year since then would bring the total to £10.8 million. Not sure if our royals have had any similar one-off payments in recent years. 81.131.10.161 (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The Crown Estates are public property so its wrong to say "You can set that against...." or "generates revenue". If they are in fact owned privately by Mrs. Saxe-Coburg-Gotha & Co, then we are being ruled by a polite elderly lawful version of Sadam Hussein. The £7.9m figure mean that this lady is being given 346 times more than the average salary. She's nearly getting a years income every day. If the Crown Estates produce a profit of £200M a year, then they must be worth a lot and should to be sold off.

There are many palaces, not just Buck Pal. Does anyone have the figures for more of them?

As well at the handout to SCG&Co, many relatives are given luxurious state handouts as well. Does anyone have a list of who gets it, and the amounts?

If Buck Pal can get a £1 billion and Windsor Castle £180 million, then why isnt the government selling those off instead of the forests? Commercial companies would know how to use them to their best advantage and boost Britain's tourist trade, and it would stop the needless drain of many millions from the public purse every year.

As an aside, the Prime Minister is equivalent to a president. They don't have two of them in the US, they seem to do OK.

Perhaps selling off all the royal fat would pay off the deficit and everyone can then get back to normality. 92.24.186.58 (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be even better, economically, to sell off the palaces as well as the forests? If we are to consider more than just the economic dimension, that would unleash all kinds of arguments for keeping both, but mercifully so far we haven't begun on the emotional, constitutional, international, ecological, or whatever other angles. Sticking to matters of money, then, everything should be sold off, starting with those things that are the biggest drain on the treasury - I would strongly recommend the NHS, had David Cameron not ruled it out - and leaving those things which actually make money to last. By the way, the budget deficit (£149 billion) is not a one-off payment, but the amount we fall short per year. The national debt is the related one-off payment, and it's insanely huge (and difficult to calculate). The government says it's £952 billion [5]. Trying to factor in liabilities that the government doesn't count might possibly bring the total to £8 trillion. This sum can't be paid in mere palaces. 81.131.22.166 (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way 92, the US does need a PM and President, they call their PM the Speaker of the House. I can think of few countries if any which don't seperate at least somewhat the head of government and head of state roles. By the way, in response to the suggestions of Alansplodge above, how about President Mandelson? Prokhorovka (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Heaven forfend! But if that's what the people want, that's what they'll get - not likely really. Alansplodge (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really a royalist, in fact I said many years ago that I'd become a republican the day Camilla became Queen, but the thought of President Mandelson, President Blair, or even President Portillo, makes me shout "Long live the Queen!" Dbfirs 10:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The Speaker of the House is head of the House of Representatives, but he's not like a PM. The President is both the Head of Government and the Head of State in the U.S. The Speaker is not the Head of Government. 85.178.81.77 (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This is often said, but I'm not sure these categories really apply to the US system. The Constitution makes no mention of a "Head of Government" or "Head of State". Arguably Newt Gingrich tried to act as prime minister. It didn't work, but there was really nothing in the Constitution to stop him. --Trovatore (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia article linked to above, it says: "The BBC estimated the annual cost to the British Public of keeping the Royal Family to be £41.5M though this figure does not include the cost of security provided by the Police and the Army. The cost of the British Monarchy is five times more the cost of the Spanish Royal Household." On the £41.5M figure alone (paid each and every year) the royals consume one thousand eight hundred and twenty times the average slary per year. That's five salaries a day, including weekends. Isnt that being just a tad greedy? That does not include the cost of security, nor the massive fortune that the Queen has on the quiet given to her son, which he only pays 25% tax on.

By selling off this economic fat, we could get a big capital boost and instead of losing £41.5M+ per year could make similar amounts from the tax the purchasers pay on their profits. We are not living in a decomcracy until we can vote for our rulers. 92.15.9.164 (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth comparing how many foreign visitors come to the UK to visit the publicly own forests, to the number of foreign visitors come to the UK to see the pomp and finery associated with the royal family. The royal family are a huge tourist draw and we shouldn't underestimate the contribution of tourism to the national coffers. Somehow, I don't think crowds of tourists will gather outside the hotel formerly known as Buckingham Palace to see the belboys ferry yet another guest's bags into reception. Astronaut (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? The queue will stretch from Buck Pal all the way to Heathrow airport. There will be massively more tourists when the assets are managed by people like Andrew Lloyd-Webber, Euro-Disney or Trump. They will know exactly how to pitch it to the foriegn tourists, rather than the too-refined snobbish low-key almost invisible promotion we get at the momemt. Think of the boost to Britain's coffers. 92.28.244.55 (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Do I detect a WP:SOAPBOX here? --TammyMoet (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why British people are so desperate to keep stuffing such huge amounts of money into the pockets of people who are no different from you, I, or anyone else. 92.28.244.55 (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

They are not desperate. They just do it by habit. They don't like revolutions over here, so things are changing, but very very slowly, all in good time, etc. It is part of the curlture: slow and moderate change is better, especially if it allows to keep the traditions goings. --Lgriot (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I call WP:SOAPBOX then. You're trying to make a political point, which is not what we're about. If you want to do that, find an Internet forum. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The £40 million figure equates to about 66p per UK citizen per year. Let's assume that this is underestimated as you suggest due to hidden costs and multiply it by five. That's 200 million or about £3.60 per citizen per year. That's less than the cost of a packet of cigarettes. We don't want a presidential republic and we like that fact that the Queen retains reserve powers as a last resort against serious government misconduct. Exxolon (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

... and who knows? -- maybe someday we will be glad that we kept those reserve powers. Think of it as an insurance policy against mis-government. (Of course, it only works if we trust the monarch, but the current monarch is surprisingly sensitive to public opinion, for example after the death of Diana, when she personally rang some "commoners" to ask them what she was doing wrong.) I pay insurances that are worse value for money. (This doesn't prevent us from changing our insurance company if we don't like the way it is run!) Dbfirs 08:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In summary of the questions asked: part a) - there is a staggeringly long list of royal palaces at List of British royal residences. Carefully sold off they may at a wild guess get two billion pounds, plus the income from the taxation of companies running them and the staunching of the drain of money being spent on them presently. Dividing any waste misspending or inefficiency by sixty million to show that its just a few pounds is not a proper argument for ignoring it.

Regarding part b), I still don't know how many royals get a hand-out.

Part d): the British royals get several times more in handouts (tens of millions) than do royals in other countries. They should at least volunteer to reduce their incomes to similar levels. 92.24.189.12 (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC) I believe you will find that Windsor Castle belongs to the Royal Family on a personal basis (as does Sandringham). After the fire at Windsor, no government money was made available for repairs, and the 40 million pounds repair bill came from the Queens own finances.

Of course it would be possible for the state to take possession of the Queens property (like the communists did in Eastern Europe), but that would provide a precedent making all citizens property subject to seizure by the state - not sure if the average citizen would like that idea. It is a simple matter of published fact that the UK Royal Family provide 8 times more revenue to the nation than they receive in aid (including security etc) - so not a bad deal for the public. Also note that Buckingham Palace, St. James Palace and Holyrood House (Scotland) are fully owned by the state and even without a monarchy would no doubt remain in use by Tony Blair or some other failed politician who became President.

Exempting judicial review

The fifth paragraph of this article about a proposed US law states that part of it "shall not be subject to judicial review". How could it possibly be legal to tell the judicial branch that they can not rule on the constituionality of a law, or part of a law, or on any action taken by either of the other two branches of govermnent? Beach drifter (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

My reading of the article is that the secondary legislation that it enables is not subject to judicial review, not that the bill itself has "you can't touch this" written on it. I think it's worth noting that all US courts but one only exist because the legislative branch says they do. Marnanel (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

For "secondary legislation" in the above response, read "administrative action" or "executive action". (But not in the sense of the executive action article, I hope!) --Anonymous, 02:25 UTC, January 29, 2011.

What this says is that the executive branch is supposed to be able to decide on its own what are and are not critical infrastructure points on the internet that can be shut off by fiat. More than likely any attempt to pass that legislation will get axed by the courts - the courts are not about to let the legislative branch exempt anything from judicial review, because they wouldn't want to set a precedent that might end up with greatly lessened power for the judicial branch. --Ludwigs2 18:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that's exactly the case. As a general rule there's not a constitutional right to appeal. There is a right to judicial review of some sort when constitutional rights are involved, and in some cases this might mean appeal. In response to Marnanel it's worth noting that it's true of the lower federal courts, but the Supreme Court is mandated by Article III, and there's been Supreme Court decisions that have suggested that removal of all avenues of judicial review for certain constitutional questions would be impermissible. I don't know off hand what that decision is unfortunately.

But Congress regularly restricts judicial reviews, although often these are Executive branch decisions. For a high profile recent example see the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act or look at this SCOTUS blog post here. Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)