Humanities desk
< January 8	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 10 >

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 9

What is the status of the legal dispute between HarperCollins and Open Road?

Sometime before December of 2011, an ebook distributing company called "Open Road" (no article here, I think, which suprises me because they publish a number of famous authors like Alice Walker) published Julie of the Wolves, presumably with the permission of its (then living, now deceased) author Jean Craighead George. The book's original publisher, HarperCollins, has filed suit on the grounds that its contract anticipates ebooks. This is the most recent Internet piece I can find. Does anyone know a good source to track the current status of the case? (I know a writer who would be interested in how to navigate the legal waters surrounding ebooks.) ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 00:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sharia in specific area of Muslim majority nation

Aceh is the only area of Indonesia that has Sharia as the main law. Is there any other areas of a Muslim majority nation that uses Sharia as the main law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Afghanistan was that way, under the Taliban. Others are heavily influenced by sharia today, like Saudi Arabia. See sharia#Contemporary_practice. StuRat (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Sharia law influences the laws of Northern Nigeria, which is a majority Muslim area, but has no influence in the Christian-majority areas of the south. --Jayron32 05:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are prisoners' brains extracted in Security Prison 21?

I remember there is such saying in The Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party, but in the article there is not a single word "brain".--Inspector (talk) 07:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completely stumped.

http://nymag.com/news/features/tide-detergent-drugs-2013-1/

Why would anyone use a "150-ounce bottle" as street currency worth $20, when a $20 bill is far more convenient and surely just as usable in every sense where tender is required? Clearly there is no street situation in which someone couldn't accept the $20, just the bottle of tide. So why would anyone use a huge bottle even if it is strictly equivalent to the utility and scarcity of the money in every sense except for being a far larger bottle?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.120.48.242 (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some factors:

1) The people who are using it as currency don't have access to $20 bills. They are drug addicts who don't work.

2) It's relatively valuable (for things which aren't locked down), with an easy to determine value, unlike, say, stolen clothes.

3) The empty containers are also useful. I use detergent bottles for storing rock salt used to spread on the driveway.

4) It's worth about the same as a typical drug transaction, so there's no need to get change from the drug dealer (good luck with that).

5) Until the cops caught on, carrying a bottle of stolen detergent was far less likely to arouse the suspicion of the police than, say, carrying a stolen TV. StuRat (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the article, the addicts aren't using Tide bottles to buy drugs directly off of the dealer. They are selling the bottles onto stores and other middlemen in exchange for cash which they then use to buy drugs. --Viennese Waltz 09:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It says: "Tide bottles have become ad hoc street currency, with a 150-ounce bottle going for either $5 cash or $10 worth of weed or crack cocaine." So, they can either sell it first, and only get $5 cash, or sell it directly for drugs, and get $10 worth. Given that choice, I'd expect them to try to sell directly for drugs. I also doubt that any store would buy detergent bottles from drug addicts. StuRat (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Read page 3 of the article. The first paragraph there talks about a "loose network of middlemen" who do exactly that, there's a quote from a trade person who says that plenty of stores don't ask questions, and – the clincher – there's a description of a sting operation where a cop goes into a shop and sells the bottles for cash. --Viennese Waltz 10:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The deal with liquid detergent is probably that it's fairly expensive this size 225 ounce bottle of name-brand detergent runs $20-25 where I live. So, you could steal it, give it to someone for $10 worth of crack (or sell it for cash to an unscrupulous convenience store owner for $10 or $5 or whatever) and everyone still gets to make a hefty profit. Where I live, razor blade cartridges and baby formula are, in most stores, kept under lock-and-key for this very reason. People steal them because they are expensive for their size and very resalable at lower prices, which makes them ideal targets for thievery. --Jayron32 14:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. It's not that this form of currency is better as currency, it is just that it can be "minted" into the black economy cheaper while still having utility. In other words, the drug seller is really trading for theft instead of trading for money. This is very interesting. It also removes the step of "fencing" from the theft where it has to be converted into currency while being "hot". This is a very interesting area of economics. Are there further resources I could read? Turning to the legal market... I would be interested in minting some kind of service or whatever that users could use and trade directly. Then they would never have to involve a credit card, which is off-putting to users! (Is this how quora works with credits?) In other words, just as the step of converting into money makes the "stolen" goods less fungible, perhaps the step of using a credit card or other "real-life" transaction with my site or platform is off-putting for "free" users. So, I would like to understand the barter economy better. Maybe I can build a valuable platform that is worth a lot in transactions, but doesn't involve money directly. Any tips on how I could understand the economic fundamentals here? Thanks. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think my point #2 is fairly important here. That is, the thing you use as currency must have a universally agreed upon value, so something most everyone can use. Cigarettes in prison are another example, although they wouldn't work outside prison, any more, in many nations, since not enough people outside of prison smoke these days. Also, both cigarette packs and detergent can be broken into smaller units easily. So, if you only want half a bag of dope you can pour half of your detergent into their container. StuRat (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First RAF 'kill' of second world war

I'm trying to establish which was the first RAF aircraft to shoot down a German or enemy aircraft during the second workd war. The article on the Fairey Battle aircraft says -

"On 20 September 1939, a German Messerschmitt Bf 109 was shot down by Battle gunner Sgt. F. Letchard during a patrol near Aachen, marking the RAF's first aerial victory of the war".

However, the article on the Lockheed Hudson says "Although later outclassed by larger bombers, the Hudson achieved some significant feats during the first half of the war. On 8 October 1939, over Jutland, a Hudson became the first RAF aircraft to shoot down a German aircraft".

I am aware that the first 'British' aircraft to shoot down a German plane was a Blackburn Skua of the 'Fleet Air Arm' on 26 September 1939. So I am confused - is it the Battle in September or the Hudson in October 1939. I have tried searching the web but the same confusion appears to exist.

Is there some subtle difference I am missing ?

Thank you for any assistance you can give. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.190.129 (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firsts, Lasts & Onlys - Military, by Jeremy Beadle and Ian Harrison (p.125) says that the Skua had the first aerial victory to be confirmed; the 20 September action was eventually confirmed by French sources at an unspecified later date, before which it would have been recorded as "probable". This would also have made the Hudson action in October the first RAF confirmed kill, until confirmation of the Battle action was received. Hell on high ground: World War II air crash sites, Volume 2, by David W. Earl (p.115) says "a Hudson operating with this squadron became the first RAF aircraft operating from a UK base to shoot down an enemy aircraft in World War Two." Hope this clarifies. Alansplodge (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RAF Museum's website says that the Hudson was; "The first Allied aircraft to shoot down an enemy while operating from the British Isles."[1] Alansplodge (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended our Blackburn Skua and Lockheed Hudson articles using the refs above, so that at least Wikipedia isn't adding to the confusion. Alansplodge (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why there is no patent on financial instruments?

One can write to the government and say, "You know, I want the right to stop anyone else from competing with me for twenty yars", and you don't have to bribe someone. You just have to file a patent. I wonder why patents can extend to things like "patents entitling someone to claim that arginine is critical for maintaining vascular function and certain other natural functions" ( slide 35 et seq. of this PDF presentation http://factsaboutherbalife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Who-wants-to-be-a-Millionaire.pdf ), which is a simple relationsihp.

But it does not extend to discovering a new financial mechanism. Why can't financial instruments be patented? In other words, suppose I have discovered a way for a company to raise money by combining debt, equity, and sales in a way that is completely novel and has never been done, and generally meets the standards for patent protection.

Why doesn't a new financial instrument deserve patent protection?

--91.120.48.242 (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to see Business method patent for a broad discussion of this question. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm not really interested in business methods. I mean, a specific financial instrument, even a complicated one that is non-obvious but has benefits, is not worthy of patent protection. Why not, in particular? (i.e. the wall street community doesn't even think of patenting these things.) I don't mean run-of-the-mill business processes, I mean particular complicated instruments. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very complicated matter. Traditionally, financial instruments were classed as ideas rather than inventions, though as you point out, that can be a blurry line. As they've become more complicated, and hence backed by more demonstrable methods, they have begun to be classed as inventions (at least in the US), leading to hundreds of patents now existing for financial instruments [2]. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 11:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jarry. Can you (or others) give me other similar entry-level, web-accessible resources summarizing this field? (Patents in financial services). I would like to get up to date but had trouble finding sites giving an overview. Thanks. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You brushed it off, but business method patents is exactly the article you need. Bilski being the most recent word on it. There are cases on "method" patents that exactly address your question. Shadowjams (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The very first dilly bar maker

Reposted from Jimbo's talk page because I'm curious to see any answers:

Dear sirs my friend has what I believe is the very first dilly bar maker . it is in poor shape but I would restore it to orginal condition my friend would like to display it in his office but he and I do not have a picture of what it looked like .Could you send me a photograph or direct me where I might find information on it. thank you - 67.163.94.156 (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dilly Bar redirects to Dairy Queen, which mentions the item precisely once, without explanation. I can't help with your questions, but I'm curious: what is a Dilly Bar? --Dweller (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's essentially a chocolate-coated, circle-shaped hunk of vanilla ice cream attached to ~~a recycled tongue depressor~~ a popsicle stick (clicky for picky). Nothing special really, but I guess the first machine designed to make them could be historic in some way. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, "The company has a Dairy Queen museum at its corporate headquarters in Minneapolis." They may have more information on its history. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it's essentially a Choc ice on a stick? -- Q Chris (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically. There's a thousand different brand names for these things, Dilly Bar is the one sold by Dairy Queen, but there is also the Eskimo Pie and the Klondike bar and many more. --Jayron32 15:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Often it's the shape that defines these things. In the case of the Dilly Bar, it's circular and contains an attempt at the well-known DQ "swirl". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli election

I'm looking for an English language copy of the Knesset Elections Law (Consolidated Version) of 1969 http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections19/eng/cec/CecAboutGeneral_eng.aspx ? 31.185.175.164 (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try, to ask on wikisource.--109.232.72.49 (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religious conversion

How do some religious authorities know whether or not a potential convert is sincere about converting? Intensive questioning? Requesting for circumcision? Qualitatively measuring the desire to convert based on various factors? What if the religious authority does not believe in free will so becomes extremely suspicious when a person says he/she wants to become a member of the religion or religious denomination? Testing for adequate theological knowledge of the religion's basic beliefs, rituals, and ethics? 140.254.227.5 (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one can see in a person's mind, and I know of no religious authorities that claim they can. Some denominations are very open and do not impose any conditions for membership, others do question potential converts, and they may take their personal conduct into consideration as well (to see if it lines up with their testimony). I don't see how the absence of free will requires people to become extremely suspicious, could you clarify that, as I don't see the connection? - Lindert (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have just said "will" or "desire" instead of "free will". I am approaching the concept in which a person volutarily, willingly, intentionally enters a religion versus a person who enters a religion due to external forces that activate the individual to acquire the religion and these external forces are beyond the person's control. 140.254.227.5 (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such as what? Do we mean a forcible or coerced conversion, which many would regard as invalid, or something else? Please give examples. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such as a person converting because he/she just likes or is attracted to the music and rituals? Or maybe becoming lured by the hospitality of some of the religious group's members? 140.254.227.5 (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such as the girl/guy one likes says they will only marry someone who is a member of their church, or their parents will only pay for the wedding if both are in the church comes to mind, which reminds me of the fictional George Costanza who faced a practically identical issue, and had to pass a test. No idea if that part was wholly fictional.20.137.2.50 (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't regard my preferences for (in my case) 18th-century hymns, incense, tea and toast, and gin, to be 'external forces beyond my control' that mysteriously 'activate me' to participate in my chosen religion. Whether it's those things or my philosophical beliefs that prompt me to do so, I do so through a conscious act of will. To believe otherwise places a very low value on free will and individual autonomy. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every religion will handle it differently. Some require a person to take classes and become indoctrinated into the specific theology and doctrine of the religion before they "accept" the person as a full member; others will accept a person as a full member based on a a rigorous examination by clerics, still others accept a person based on a simple "profession of faith", which is usually a short creed where you publicly state your acceptance of the core beliefs of the religion, still others may require a series of complex rituals and symbolic acts, or indeed any combination of the above. It really varies wildly from faith to faith. --Jayron32 16:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion to Orthodox Judaism is notoriously difficult. The Beth Din will require substantial evidence of commitment, study and religious practice. See Conversion to Judaism. But Judaism is unusual in being non-proselytising - a situation underpinned by its belief that you don't need to be Jewish to go to heaven. --Dweller (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zoroastrianism is another usually non-proselytising religion. Rmhermen (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A formal part of the Orthodox ceremony, in fact, calls for trying to persuade the potential convert that he or she has much to lose and not much to gain by converting: that Judaism is complicated and difficult; that Jews are persecuted; that gentiles can gain salvation with much less effort etc., especially if they already believe the tenets of Judaism; and so on.

However, converts to Judaism, once converted properly, are considered a valid convert no matter what their motive was. (Caveat: properly means, among other things, that they intended to accept all Orthodox tenets of faith and practice Orthodox practices.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 01:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1st and 2nd largest Bangladeshi, Arab, Somali, Iranian, Afghan and Turk communities in United Kingdom

Is there a website it shows the data of which cities in United Kingdom has the largest Bangladeshi community?; Arab community?; Somali community?; Iranian community?; Afghan community; and Turk community? Thanks.--Donmust90 (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Donmust90.[reply]

The official UK census and statistics page is Here. Unlike Canada below, it looks like the UK data is sortable as you want it to be. This page here contains a Microsoft Excel document titled "PEEG, Current Estimates, Population Estimates by Ethnic Group Mid-2009 (experimental) (Excel sheet 1691Kb) 18-May-2011". Select that and load it into Microsoft Excel. You can then work with the data and sort it however you would like using Excel's sort and filter functions. --Jayron32 20:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cities in Canada largest and 2nd largest Bangladeshi, Iranian, Arab, Somali, Turk, and Afghan communities

Which cities in Canada has the largest and 2nd largest Bangladeshi community?; Iranian community?; Arab community?; Somali community?; Turk community?; and Afghan community?--Donmust90 (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Donmust90 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The official Canadian government census data website is here. Doing some digging, it doesn't seem they allow you to sort the data by ethnic group, but they DO have the data there. You just have to go through and pull it out yourself. For example, This page here has the ethnic breakdown of Canada as a whole from the 2006 census. You can customize this for individual provinces, or for major metropolitan areas within provinces by using the pulldown menu labeled "Geography". It's a little tedious, but you could go through each urban area and note the population of your desired ethnic groups for each urban area. For example, selecting "Halifax" from the list and hitting "submit" reveals that in 2006 there were 30 Bangladeshi, 685 Iranians, 7,405 "Arabs" (of all origins), etc. etc. Since Canada isn't that large of a country, you could probably compile your statistics by checking out the top ten or twenty or so most populous cities. If you're only slightly more computer-savy, you could go to the "download" tab and download the full data file for ethnic data in XML format, if you have the correct program to work with that sort of file, you can extract all sorts of useful data from the raw census information. I tried to load it using Microsoft Excel (which can import XML files and display them as sortable data) but it was just too big. Still, its all there for you to work with. --Jayron32 20:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lambastide

Do people still celebrate this event? I think I have encountered this term before in Romeo and Juliet. The word itself looks very much like the words Christmastide or Eastertide. Are there any other obscure religious observances? 140.254.226.249 (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article is Lammas. The article claims that certain neopagan religions give it some prominence, and also that some Christian religions give it some recognition by tying it to other religious observances. I don't believe that there's any significantly large religious or secular holiday, as recognized by any sizable group of people, associated with it anymore. Probably the closest modern observances would be modern commemorations of Harvest festivals, such as the North American Thanksgiving holidays (October in Canada, November in the U.S.); but those are at a different time of year. --Jayron32 21:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found The Ould Lammas Fair which takes place in Ballycastle, County Antrim. Observance in England seems to have died out, starting when the church abandoned it at the Reformation.[3] Alansplodge (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of England has, or used to have Rogationtide, which ~~I think overlaps with~~ prefigures Lammas to a certain extent. Some Methodist churches have recently introduced Kingdomtide at the end of Ordinary Time, running up to the feast of Christ the King and Advent. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit odd. Seasons like Eastertide and Christmastide generally run after the first day "Easter" or "Christmas", with the season before the day being a different season with a different character and name. 86.140.54.211 (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the suffix "-tide" means "in the season of". Christmas is immediately preceded by the fast of Advent and Easter by Lent, thus precluding (in theory) any celebration beforehand. Alansplodge (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I first saw this word I thought it was an alternative name for Festivus - a holiday specifically devoted to lambasting one's friends and family. Though some might have this experience at Thanksgiving, YMMV. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 17:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belief-oriented religion vs. Tribal religion

Is it possible for a belief-oriented religion that focuses on proselytizing and gaining more converts to become "tribal" as well by having offspring who identify themselves as members of the same religion because their ancestors were that religion or maybe to avoid persecution of apostasy? If outsiders or non-members of a belief-oriented religion accidentally mislabels a typical Western atheist person for a Christian person simply because of the perceived manners and ethics of Western society (e.g. wedding vows, marrying in church or house of worship, celebrating Christmas and Easter, which some Western atheists seem to do), then has the belief-oriented religion suddenly turned into a tribal one? In other words, a member of a tribal religion would be a member of that religion, regardless of actual beliefs, but by blood. 140.254.226.249 (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you think that a 'tribal religion' wouldn't be belief-based? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's my impression that most members of traditional religions (including Christianity) are only so because their parents were. Most of these members never really think about the complex theological details of their religion. In a society like mine, Australia, most people live according to Judaeo-Christian values, but only 7% go to church regularly. HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trillion dollar coin and Matthew Yglesias

Hi, it seemed to me that a few days ago that Yglesias said, that aside from the economic merits of the trillion dollar platinum coin, it would be considered unconstitutional, even though by the letter of the law it would be ok. His most recent opinion that I read today is that the coin would be legally okay. That's fine if he changed his mind, (especially since I think the coin would be great), but I can't find hide nor hair of his earlier opinion anywhere. Was it somehow erased by the Slate website or do i just have his earlier opinion mixed up with someone else's? I admit I'm not a very skillful googler but I would like to find when and if he changed his mind, and think his later opinion should acknowledge that.(if he did, as i said i could have misremembered it). Thanks, Richard Peterson64.134.232.133 (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Constitution gives the Congress the power to coin and print money. I don't think it has much else to say about it, so I don't know how it could be "unconstitutional" to create a trillion dollar coin. Foolish, maybe, but being foolish is not forbidden by the Constitution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't help the OP, however there are arguments circulating [pun] that specie that doesn't circulate isn't "money". It's probably a moot point, and an interesting academic question, but I shudder at sweeping proclimations of legality in cases like this, where it's very untested. Shadowjams (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. money is whatever the U.S. Congress decides it is. That's why Confederate bills may be valuable as collectibles, but as legal tender they're not worth a Continental. There used to be bills up to like 10,000 dollars, which were used only for internal transactions in the Federal Reserve. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not exactly. "Money" is a specific term used in the Constitution, so if you want to look to Congress's power to coin money, then you need to know what the Constitution means by "money". Here is the article that discusses the point: [4]. I'm not agreeing with that, but it's not as simple as 'money is what congress says', at least insofar as the Constitution matters. That there are $10,000 bills is completely irrelevant. Shadowjams (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin..." seems pretty clear. Congress can make $10,000 bills, or trillion dollar coins, or whatever they want to do, at least within the framework of the Constitution. As to that one article's argument, he's asserting a particular definition of "money". But there is no such definition in the Constitution. It reminds me a bit of pedants who say that the Income Tax amendment is invalid because it misuses the term "income". They're wrong, and so is the guy who thinks he can define what money is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that's not some weird fringe blog, but a collection of [albeit conservative] well respected law professors from top tier law schools? The particular post I linked was written by a Northwestern University law professor. And yeah, the Constitution doesn't have a dictionary associated with it... that's pretty standard for most constitutional pieces. Pick any clause you like and you'll have exactly the same issue. That doesn't mean it's irrelevant and means whatever it is you want. The article I linked has some interesting appellate level cases that suggest that "money" requires circulation. The SCOTUS cases are a bit less convincing. Either way, I don't really care or have an opinion. If I could put money on it (pun!) I seriously doubt the president will mint a trillion dollar coin, but as for the technical legal argument, I think you're a little too certain. Shadowjams (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who its author is; money is created by Congress, not by law professors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well bugs, if you don't want to actually argue merits, fine. I don't care so much that you're wrong, but that you're so certain about it. Shadowjams (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monetary policy is set by the government, not by pontificators writing blogs. Just like the definition of "income" is set by the government, not by external theorists. I don't know how that could be any plainer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I'm still engaging you on this.... but at least at some point you might have realized that "the government" has some rules, that happen to be understood by "external theorists", and that's what we're talking about. Any other form of government is decidedly not the rule of law. Shadowjams (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the government decides it wants to create a trillion dollar coin, there's nothing to stop them, other than common sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm.... You do understand the "government", at least in the U.S., is not some monolithic force that does what it wants, but instead has branches, factions, and individual actors... and there are things to stop them, namely other branches of government? Your original comment dealt with congress, which is a specific one of those 3 branches. It's particularly interesting since the whole monetary issue you're talking about actually is about the executive minting that coin... which is actually a statutory issue (there's already been a bill introduced to prohibit the president from minting the trillion dollar coin), and the judiciary is likely to be the last word when it comes to whether or not it's constitutional, if it ever comes to that (it won't). Shadowjams (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're telling me that the words in the Constitution are untrue. Stop while you're behind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's telling you that your understanding of the words in the Constitution isn't true. A different thing entirely. --Jayron32 23:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, this subject was being discussed on NPR today, and their expert's view squares with mine. So who should I believe? An expert on NPR? Or some ref desk know-it-all? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, then his understanding of the words is wrong. But words themselves cannot be wrong. They're just words, and they have no meaning until we provide that meaning ourselves. A link to that NPR interview would be most helpful, s'il vous plait. --Jayron32 23:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said before, we've got this college professor, a self-styled expert, claiming that he can define for Congress what the term "money" means. The Constitution does not define "money", it merely uses the term. The NPR interviewee indicated (1) the trillion dollar coin could indeed be used as per the theory; and (2) there is no legal problem with it. I think the discussion was on All Things Considered, and I don't know if they provide transcripts or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It took me three clicks from www.npr.org to find it: [5]. This is an audio of the broadcast itself. It has not been transcribed yet, it seems, but it's there to listen to. In the future, Bugs, it is helpful to provide the actual references to points you wish to support. You aren't always going to have someone friendly do the hard work for you. And honestly, it wasn't that hard. Took about 15 seconds. --Jayron32 01:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Bugs. The trillion dollar platinum coin presents no legal, economic, financial issue not presented by the 1/100 dollar copper penny. Volokh's point about circulation has some small merit, but there is no reason a trillion dollar coin could not circulate, except the unwieldiness of the denomination. So a thousand billion dollar coins could be minted instead. A billion is just chump change to Washington & Wall Street these days. In the natural course of things they would end up at the Treasury and then the Fed in no time.John Z (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]