Humanities desk
< November 14	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 16 >

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.

November 15

US President not signing a bill without vetoing

Are there any statistics on how often US presidents don't sign a bill without vetoing it in any way? In other words the president simply does nothing for the 10 days, fully expecting Congress will not adjourn. So I'm not referring to any sort of pocket veto, even those disputed ones (Pocket veto#United States) but a case where everyone agrees from the get-go the bill has become law without the president signing. I guess a president could do this because they're hoping Congress will adjourn and they could try a pocket veto, or simply to try and force congress to stick around for whatever reason (e.g. to annoy them, because the president doesn't think they're doing enough), but I'm assuming some presidents would do it with bills they disagee with but aren't willing to veto. I'm aware that presidents also use Signing statement and other things (like speaking to the media) for various related reasons. I've tried searching but it's difficult due to the large number of sources talking about how normal vetos and pockets vetos work. Nil Einne (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any canonical list of such laws that passed the 10 day limit, but they surely happen. Here is one example, here is another. --Jayron 32 17:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article titled Presentment Clause notes that the National Archives and Records Administration keeps a record of every law which has passed; it may be worthwhile to contact them to see if they can help you with your research. --Jayron 32 17:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What if he's not there?

Nil's question leads me to wonder: what happens to bills if the US president goes on an extended trip? This is not a situation where the vice-president could serve as acting president, as far as I can tell. In 1919 Woodrow Wilson spent months in Europe. Was Congress out of session at the time? Or, by taking the trip, was he risking the possibility that they would pass bills that he would have vetoed, and these would become law? In similar circumstances today the bills could sent to him by air for his signature, but transatlantic travel wasn't quite so fast in 1919. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that the 10-day clock doesn't start when the bill is passed, but rather when the President is physically presented with the bill for his signature. So, if the President is out of the country, a courier would have to physically deliver the bill to him in order to start the 10-day clock. At which point the President has 10 days (not including Sundays) to return the bill to Congress either affirmed or vetoed. If he fails to return the bill within 10-days, and Congress is in session, then the bill automatically becomes law. By 1920, ships could cross the Atlantic in only 5 days, so it seems possible that Wilson could return bills within the 10-day window, though it would be a difficult thing. If Congress and the President are on good terms, they could simply hold all non-urgent legislation for his approval after his return. Dragons flight (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that covers it. Thanks!

Resolved

It can be sent electronically and printed anywhere in the world. The time it takes electrons to travel is the only time limit on the "clock" now. --Jayron 32 16:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. However, I was (in part) asking about 1919. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Today, the content of a bill can certainly be sent anywhere in the world, but the US legislative process is still steeped in 18th century formalities. The bill presentation that historically counts for legislative purposes is the delivery to the President of the printed physical copy of the bill bearing the signatures of the speaker of the House, the presiding officer of the Senate, and either the clerk of the House or the secretary of the Senate depending on which chamber originated the bill. For certain long bills, they have procedures to waive printing the bulk of the bill, but the physically signed certificate still must be delivered to the President (or his designated recipient) in order to start the clock. Dragons flight (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatism (small "c") is a feature of legislatures. Not very long ago the House of Commons decided to stop printing Acts of Parliament on vellum (long - lasting but expensive) and switch to paper instead. They have always been printed on vellum. The House of Lords objected, and peace was restored when they agreed to pay the additional cost out of their own pocket. 92.8.63.27 (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Trump gives up now?

Hello you that we can can call: the one thousand mouths Goddess. Some people, journalists, and so on consider that Trump in fact does not want to be next President. Question: what would happen if he decided to give up now. Would Hillary be the next President? Would the USA have to organize new elections? That is moreless a constitutional question. Thank you from France for your help.--Jojodesbatignoles (talk) 06:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Pence would likely become President unfortunately. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing happens if he decides to give up now, he's not the president-elect until the electoral college meets. So there's two scenarios: If they cast their votes for Donald Trump and Mike Pence, then on January 20, Trump is sworn in, resigns, and Pence becomes president. (if Trump does not want to even be sworn in, the VP-elect becomes president I do believe either way) On the other hand, if Trump doesn't get 270 electoral votes, then the election goes to the House of Representatives, in which each state gets one vote. The problem, though, is they can only vote for people who received electoral votes: Trump and Clinton. So again, Trump would be selected. The senate would chooses the Vice President, who again, since [I think?] the Republicans control most states in the senate, would select Pence, and thus, again, if Trump did not want the job, Pence would become president.

Long story short: There is no path by which Clinton becomes president. --Golbez (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor nitpick. The electoral college does not "meet", ever. There are separate meetings of the electors in each state and another meeting of the ones in DC. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC), reworded 10:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

What do you mean "each state gets one vote" in the House of Representatives? The states are represented according to population in the H of R, so California has way more reps than Rhode Island for example, but no state has only one. Even in the Senate, there are two senators per state. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution, to wit "...if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote..." (bold mine). --Jayron 32 20:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, several states only have 1 representative. As you can see at United States congressional apportionment, the 7 least populous states (of which Rhode Island isn't...) have only 1 representative each. --Jayron 32 20:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This solution, if that's the word, reinforces the Constitution-based notion that it is the states which elect the president, not the public as such. It's the theory behind the Electoral College, and it's also the basis for the House vote if it comes to that. That is, every state is equal in that circumstance. As far as Hillary still having a chance to be president, there could be ways it could happen, but it won't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mean each state gets one vote. In the case that the House has to decide the presidency, California gets exactly the same amount of votes as Wyoming: One. If the delegation is deadlocked on how to vote, then they abstain. Likewise, I think the senate gets one vote per state; again, if they're deadlocked, abstention. --Golbez (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, if the Vice Presidency gets thrown to the Senate, every senator gets to vote independently. Read the text of the amendment. " and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice." (bold mine) I have no idea why the House votes as states, and the Senate votes as individuals in the case of a contested Presidential and Vice Presidential election. But they do. --Jayron 32 02:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Meanwhile, the arcanities of the US electoral system continue unabated. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's arcane because it was invented out of whole cloth by intellectuals who had never seen it in practice anywhere, and were flying off the cuff. It actually worked very well in late 18th century America; sadly the hagiography of the Founding Fathers of the United States means that updating their 18th century pseudo-Aristocratic ideas about how to run a country for the 21st century is difficult. It should be noted that some of their core ideas actually became obsolete within a decade; most of them abhorred the notion of organized political parties, and the nation's founding principles were based on a party-less political landscape; the introduction of the two-party system undercut most of what should have made it work well. --Jayron 32 11:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These discussions suggest it's not really clear how exactly things will happen if the president elect refuses to take the oath of office. [1] [2] [3] [4]. The VP will become president sure, but how isn't totally clear cut because it isn't something that's really addressed. Most likely the president-elect will become president on inauguration day but can't discharge the powers and duties of office. He can probably still resign, but if he doesn't and just doesn't do anything well it may get complicated. Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the resignation has to be in writing. It wasn't enough for Edward VIII to say he didn't want to be king any more - he had to sign a paper. 92.8.63.27 (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence is there for that? I don't mean for the Edward thing but for the situation for the US president. 3 USC 20 [5] does require a written resignation, but since it's US Code but dealing with something as major as the resignation of the President, I don't think it's clear it's enforcable. Article Two of the United States Constitution and Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution don't seem to clearly require a written resignation. Article 3 the twenty-fifth amendment does talk about a written declaration, but it doesn't say this is required and it's not even clear this is talking about a resignation since it suggests the president can come back simply by another written declaration and the VP is only acting. As far as I can tell, the constitution doesn't otherwise really talk about how a president resigns. Practically, a president is likely to follow US Code and whatever else people advise them. However if a president just kept telling people "I'm fired" and when asked for details says he fired himself because he didn't think anyone would actually vote for him but when asked for a written resignation says his hands are too big to write stuff like that, I'm not sure it's clear what will happen. Similar to the case of a president not taking the oath of office and maybe not even botherinng to tell people he resigned. Of course if US Code is the only thing, Congress could simply change that if it ever arises. So the enforceability may not be tested then anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Section 4 of the self-same Twenty-fifth Amendment would come into play for a President that just quits without formal resignation. That is, if they simply disappeared, or stopped showing up to work, or simply refused to do the job anymore, but never submitted a formal resignation, then Section 4, regarding the removal of the President from his office without a formal resignation, would be followed. The President would not be officially removed from office, but the VP would be "Acting President" until such time as Congress decides to reinstate the President. --Jayron 32 18:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's definitely a (probably the) likely option but we don't know for sure. My facetious example perhaps distracted a bit from my point which was more about what actually counts as a formal resignation? Is the USC section actually binding? What happens if the president tells Congress (in person) they're resigning and later in numerous media interviews, discussions with others etc says they've resigned? Perhaps their state of the union address was a more sophisticated version of "the state of the union is it's fucked. so screw you guys, I'm going home" (with resignation definitely made clear). Will everyone proceed only with the acting thing, or is it possible they'll decide the P has resigned and the VP has become P? A notable point is while still unlikely, it seems to be some variant of this could arise if an extreme constitutionalist decides to resign perhaps because they're sick of not being able to do anything about what they feel are too many regulations. Also, if USC is a concern, could Congress modify it? Assuming the president is still telling everyone they resigned, will it matter what USC said when they nominally actually resigned?

Or an alternative scenario, what happens if the President writes a letter but gets confused with section 3, and so writes a letter to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives saying they've resigned with whatever formality people feel is needed. (I note that several commentators do seem confused by section 3 as they mention Nixon's letter didn't comply, but as mentioned before, section 3 doesn't seem to be about resigning.) Can those parties just send the letter to the Secretary of State if for some reason the (former?) president refuses to do so? (I'm not an expert on legal language or the law but I note USC seems to simply say "delivered". If this is okay, what about if the president doesn't write a letter to them but instead writes a letter in his magazine saying he resigned and giving his reasons? What about if he actually wrote a letter to the editor of the magazine, and they send this actual letter?

It may seem this is very risky instead of simply using something like section 4. However it seems to me if it's felt this could be cleared up, e.g. if someone with standing could be found to challenge it, perhaps it may be seen as better to resolve it. As I understand it, the acting president can't appoint a new vice president. And then there's the risk the president may decide to try and cancel their resignation which would seem far easier if section 4 was used so the president never actually resigned. However, as hinted before, it seems unlikely to me these issues will ever be tested, so I suspect we'll never actually know.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In British law the first living person on the big list of eligibles is the monarch whether he likes it or not. Edward VIII's "Instrument of Abdication" had no legal effect: it was a memo asking Parliament to enact a change to the law. Parliament did so, and when he signed it (EDIT: as King, thus making it effective) he ceased to be King. (Idea for a silly thriller: he starts to sign it but gets only two letters down before he's hit with a knockout dart ....) The suggested analogy with the Presidency is spurious: a President can resign without any action by anyone else. As for putting it in writing, that's prudent but I betcha if a President said to enough witnesses (e.g. the crowd assembled for his inauguration, or either house of Congress) "I hereby resign my office" his speech act would be deemed effective. —Tamfang (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: That makes a mess of the scene at the end of To Play the King where the Prime Minister demands the King's abdication. He'd have to push a bill through Parliament and present it to the King, saying, "Your ministers advise you to sign this." —Tamfang (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a related point, the president chosen by the electoral college (if eligible) is president whether he takes the oath of office or not. See the 12th amendment, cited above: "The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President". If he doesn't take the oath, he is only prohibited from using the powers of the presidency. See Article Two, cited above: "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation". There's been at least one president (Zachary Taylor) who took office on a Sunday but thought it was more seemly to wait until Monday to take the oath. He was still president. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded by this discussion of, what may be, one of the shortest resignation letters I can remember. Bill Belichick was head coach of the New York Jets for only one day when he resigned to take his current job at the New England Patriots. His official resignation was tendered in the form of the following note, written on a napkin, handed to the team president as he was being introduced to the press as the new head coach "I resign as HC of the NYJ." [6] --Jayron 32 18:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon's resignation letter wasn't much longer. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, but at least Nixon had the decency to have it typed up, and formally signed it. Belichick scrawled his out with a sharpie on a napkin. --Jayron 32 19:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the journalists who say Mr. Trump does not actually want to be President, and might resign, are simply engaging in wishful thinking. As fun as it is to play the "what if" game... everything discussed above is unlikely to happen. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely, it's wishful thinking; and the "what if" game is of intellectual interest only. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did some research before Richard Nixon's name came up and found a reference to his resignation speech but no reference to a letter. As there was a letter, this suggests that USC states the position correctly. 92.8.63.27 (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of the letter but don't really get what you mean. As I said above when I first brought this up, it's exceedingly likely any president will simply do what they and their advisors feel is necessary which likely includes complying with USC. (Maybe not really said clearly, but as hinted by me and Jayron32, if they don't do that, there's a fair chance they won't have actually said or done anything which could resonably be taken as a resignation so will instead need to be considered unfit for office and section 4 will come into play.) However this doesn't tell us whether this is actually required and what happens if it isn't followed but there's strong indication of resignation. Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bath money and perfume money

In the context of ancient Indian history during the time of Buddha, I found these two concepts: bath money and perfume money. A village called Kasi was given as bath money and perfume money by Mahakosala, the king of Kosala, to Bimbisara of Magadha when Bimbisara married Mahakosala's daughter Kosala Devi. [7][8]. Could anyone please explain me what exactly was bath money and perfume money? I tried to search in Google, but could not find any reference explaining these. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does This help at all? I haven't read through it, but it may lead you places... --Jayron 32 12:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The village was part of her dowry (Malalasekara, Dictionary of Pali Proper Names, Pali Text Society, Oxford 1997, vol.1, p.698).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but what is bath and perfume money? Was it intended to give the bribe the ability to buy perfume or aromatic substances for bath? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I too am curious. Perhaps they are akin to pin money? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any meaning for "perfume money" besides the obvious, money to buy perfume. "Bath money", on the other hand, could mean many things. There's money to construct a bathing area, build a water delivery system and/or transport the water, heat the water, and buy bathing salts and oils. Or, perhaps the bathing area was elsewhere, like a natural hot spring, and the money was to transport the person to that area and pay their entrance fee. Servants may have been employed to help, and they would need to be paid too, unless they were slaves. StuRat (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't providing perfume and bath money as part of a dowry imply that the recipient stinks ? :-) StuRat (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Schengen-zone residence for non-citizens, as opposed to residence rights in one specific member state

The Schengen common travel zone in Europe allows people to move about quite freely between its member states, often without border controls, but AFAIK each of the countries still sets its own criteria for granting permanent residence or citizenship. The requirements usually include living there for a few years on work visas or temporary residence permits.

I would like to know if any of them will credit time spent living in another Schengen state against their own residence requirements. For example, France gives permanent residence after 5 years. Could a non-EU citizen live for 2 years in Spain, move to France, and get a French carte de sejour after 3 years? 129.67.117.147 (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is information on permanent residency in France. They do appear to require living in France (like "honest-to-god-France", not "Spain-for-two-years-but-hey-that's-close-enough-right-France") for 5 consecutive years. Also, it looks like "permanent residency" status expires after 10 years, which must mean the French have a different understanding of permanence than the rest of the world... --Jayron 32 21:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've clarified my question title now I've thought it through a bit more. What I'm actually looking for is a concept of Schengen residence, if that exists even in some member states, to go with the common visa system and border controls. 129.67.117.147 (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a concept of Long-term resident (European Union). Essentially it is a long-term residence permit that once granted in one country entitles the bearer to transfer their long-term residence to most other EU countries (not including the UK or Ireland, which don't participate in the program). When switching countries you still have to apply for a local permit, and meet other local requirements (e.g. a job, knowledge of the language), but you can generally bypass the required years of temporary residency. The granting of an EU long-term residence permit is governed by the laws of each individual member state. In general, you have to apply for an EU long-term residence permit in the state that you currently reside in. One needs to show a number of years of continuous residence with continuous employment and no legal problems (often 5 years) before being granted an EU long-term permit. Some, but not all, EU member states will count years spent in other countries when considering whether to grant an EU long-term residence permit. Belgium (considered one of the most permissive EU states for residence) does count years spent in other states. I believe that Germany does not count any years spent in other states. It appears that France will count some years spent in other EU countries if you hold an EU blue card (a temporary residence permit issued to high-skill workers), but at least the two years prior to applying for an EU long-term residence permit must still be spent in France.[9] If you are considering this, it will be necessary to explore the specific rules of the country in which you hope to apply for long-term resident status. Dragons flight (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]