Humanities desk
< July 29	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 31 >

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.

July 30

Political convention

What would have happened if one or both presidential candidates declined (for whatever reason) their respective parties' nomination? 74.15.116.62 (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The party would have to choose someone else. This has been discussed fairly recently in the ref desks, possibly humanities, possibly elsewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

link, anyone? I presume this would release those delegates "pledged" to the declining candidate from their pledges. The rules on whom they'd have to vote for instead vary from state to state, from what I remember? Not quite a perfectly identical question, but see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2016_March_23#In_the_Republican_presidential_primaries_of_2016.2C_what_happens_to_Marco_Rubio.27s_169_delegates.3F. I presume similar rules would apply if the "presumptive nominee" withdrew his or her nomination, wouldn't they? That answer only deals with the Republican party's rules - I don't know how things would work in the Democratic Party if something arose (e.g. a family crisis or a major health scare) which caused presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton to withdraw. Anyone able to enlighten me and the OP on this question?

Also, the question I linked to only deals with the process pre the actual vote. Would the same process apply now that Trump is no longer simply "presumptive" nominee, but has in fact been formally nominated? Or would the nominee's running mate automatically get to step into the nominee's shoes, just as if the nominee was actually president?

Don't let this distract people from the rest of my answer (please do offer facts or opinions on what I've written above), but out of curiousity, I looked up Betfair's "next president" market. Their clear presumption (or rather that of their punters) is that if by some remote chance, something happens to push out Hillary, than (surprise!) the only other serious candidate, Bernie Sanders, will get the gig as Democratic nominee. Joe Biden being the only other layable chance, but only around half as likely as Bernie to be chosen. On the Republican side, things seem far less clear, with ALL candidates barring Paul Ryan essentially being at unlayable odds (and Ryan is very close to that point too). So essentially, if before the election Trump dies, gets hit by a meteor, or withdraws due to some sort of personal or family crisis, the field is pretty open. The punters suggest Paul Ryan would be frontrunner by a nose, but any one of several potential candidates could emerge (or rather re-emerge). Eliyohub (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Servicemembers civil relief act and unintended consequences

I well understand the logic behind the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, to allow soldiers to go fight for their country without having to worry about their house being foreclosed upon or being evicted by their landlord whilst they're gone. My question is, wouldn't such a law have unintended consequences?

Which bank would want to extend a mortgage to a serviceman who is liable to be called up on deployment, leaving the bank with an unpaid mortgage constantly growing, and a home they can't foreclose on to deal with it? Ditto with a landlord and a tenancy - who would rent an apartment to someone in the military, if the person is liable to get called up and stop paying the rent, but can't be evicted until their return? For that matter, wouldn't this apply to any creditor dealing with an application for any form credit from an enlisted servicemember (who is not currently on deployment, but is liable to be called up at any time)?

At least the bank extending the mortgage likely has some equity in the house, so it's not totally exposed. When the serviceman returns, if he can't pay up the arrears, the bank can if necessary foreclose and take their cut of the sale. The landlord, on the other hand, is totally exposed. If the serviceman tenant racks up a huge rent bill which he will not be able to afford to pay on return, the landlord may suffer a significant loss.

So my question is, does the servicemans civil relief act have the effect of making people reluctant to extend credit to servicemen? If yes, how is this problem practically dealt with? Can a landlord legally demand a disproportionate bond to cover the rent for the maximum time a serviceman is likely to be on deployment for?

And if the act does not in practice have this effect of making people reluctant to extend credit, why not? How do creditors protect themselves from being left with a mounting debt owed to them, and a debtor they can't sue until his return (at which point the debt may have exceeded the serviceman's assets)? Eliyohub (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming the government won't pick up the tab. Is that really how it works ? If so, that falls into the "unfunded mandate" category, which always causes problems.

I also wonder how often unpaid rent or mortgages are really an issue. After all, servicemen and women are paid, and have virtually all their living expense covered while deployed, leaving all the money they would have spent on transportation, clothes, food, entertainment, etc., while home, to be applied towards rent and their mortgage. And they may have additional combat pay.

You might also wonder if renters might take advantage, not pay rent and then move out after their protection under the Act expires. I doubt if many do. After all, all the owed rent then becomes due, doesn't it ? Meaning they could then have their wages garnished to pay back rent, would have their credit rating damaged, would have an extremely negative reference from the landlord when they looked for a new place to live, etc. And if there's no limitation on interest and penalties that can accrue, the total amount would also be far higher than if they just paid the rent. The only way I can see a net gain for the soldier is if they are sure they won't survive. They could then send their pay to whomever they like, instead of to the landlord, and not have to worry about all the negative consequences they would otherwise face. StuRat (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be overstating the law when you say "without having to worry about their house being foreclosed upon" the act requires that any foreclosure on a service member on active duty be approved by a judge. The provision that relates to rent/leases applies to leases which were signed prior to the service member becoming active duty military or when they are transferred or deployed overseas for more then 3 months. If a SM stops paying their rent 'just because' the law isn't going to help them very much. In any case evictions can still occur, they simply need to be approved by a court first. Maybe your state is different but many states already require a judge to approve any eviction order. As for mortgages lenders have been found guilty of breaking the law US V. Capitol One and The settlement between 49 states, the feds and several banks provide some examples. A nice guide to the law is available, although tailored toward judges it provides a decent overview for the non lawyer as well. Link . Gradvmedusa (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, no tenant/homeowner can be evicted without an order of a judge. During the war, servicemen's civilian jobs were legally protected so that they could return to them after demobilisation. Similar protection applies today to women who take advantage of legal provisions for maternity leave. 86.151.49.155 (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Stahl (soldier)

Hello. Since the main author hasn't answered for quite a while by now, can anybody here tell what is correct?--Hubon (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any conflicting iformation. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 07:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox was changed a couple of months ago, to match the lead section.[1] Whether the info is correct or not, would be another question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! I haven't realized that yet because no one answered to my request. My mistake, I'm incredibly sorry for bothering.--Hubon (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except we still don't have a source for it. All we have is agreement between the lead and the infobox. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Though, to be honest, I simply trust in DocYako's knowledge here since he is the main author, whom I also addressed before on this issue.--Hubon (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]