Humanities desk
< July 18	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 20 >

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 19

Hypothetical question about a US state constitutional amendment process

Let's say that, purely hypothetically, some US state has an extremely high bar in regards to amending its constitution--for instance, by requiring a 90% vote in favor of a constitutional amendment for it to actually be adopted. Also, let's say that SCOTUS will use the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause to declare this US state constitutional amendment process to be unconstitutional. However, what would happen if this US state will refuse to specify a new constitutional amendment process in its constitution? Would SCOTUS then be entitled to declare what kind of constitutional amendment process this US state should have? Futurist110 (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is too speculative for the general version to get meaningful answers here, but Hollingsworth v. Perry was a case of a federal appelate court throwing out a state constitutional amendment. Nobody knew how it was going to go until it happened. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SCOTUS doesn't seem to have that power. But we know what happens when some states absolutely refuse to behave reasonably in the US: The federal government stop investing in that state (see Conditional Grants). If that is not convincing pressure enough, it seems to me that, just like Congress did declare territories to become a states when it felt like that territory had met certain criteria, it could declare the opposite and make a state a territory again, based on not meeting a criteria of Congress's definition. Constitutional problem solved. If the people in the state in question take arms against that decision I guess you have a civil war. --Lgriot (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congress cannot do that without the consent of the state. Congress cannot create new states out of the land of existing states, nor can it abolish a state, merge two states, etc. without consent of the state itself. Article 4, section 3. SCOTUS does have the power, by the way, to invalidate state constitutions (in whole or in part), though it often chooses not to involve itself. The decision of SCOTUS to not hear a case is not the same thing as them not being able to hear a case. See Supremacy Clause, which establishes that the U.S. constitution (including both explicit and implied rights etc.) is supreme, and that when in conflict, the U.S. constitution takes precedence over the State constitutions. There is often some confusion between the Supremacy Clause and the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but consistently it has been interpreted that the Supremacy clause takes precedence, the Tenth Amendment only applies when there is no conflict between the states and the feds over some issue; that is where Federal law is silent on some matter, the States are free to legislate it how they please. The key phrase is "not delegated", so if some power or part of the Constitution is delegated as a federal issue, the States cannot override it. This concept became very powerful in the years after the Civil War onward, where the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution allowed the incorporation doctrine to prohibit states from denying rights which the Federal laws have determined are there. Again, SCOTUS has the full power to review, and declare unconstitutional, every law or regulation passed by any body with legislative function in the U.S., from a local municipal ordinance, a state law, or a federal statute. Whether or not they do choose to speak on a case or remain silent on it is not necessarily a statement on their ability to do so. --Jayron 32 14:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I second Lgriot's comment here. If SCOTUS strikes down a US state's constitutional amendment procedure and that's literally the only constitutional amendment procedure in this US state's constitution, who exactly determines what this US state's new constitutional amendment procedure should look like? Also, what margin would be necessary for this? For instance, is a mere majority vote in that US state good enough even if that US state's constitution (the part that was just struck down by SCOTUS in this hypothetical scenario) requires an extremely massive super-majority vote for this? What if this US state can't ever reach this required super-majority vote? Then what? Futurist110 (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that is a really well informed response, but the question was not whether SCOTUS can invalidate a constitution (that is pretty clear to everyone in this thread), but whether it can decide what should replace the part that it has just invalidated. I quote the OP "Would SCOTUS then be entitled to declare what kind of constitutional amendment process this US state should have?" --Lgriot (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)![reply]

I question whether anybody would ever have federal standing to sue to overturn a state constitutional amendment process. That said, in Reynolds v. Sims the Supreme Court struck down an entire structural provision of a state constitution as violating equal protection. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has more or less already happened in Rhode Island in the 1840s, where the majority of the population were not allowed to vote, and the Royal Charter of 1663(!) had no procedure for amendment. Suffragists could not get the legislature to agree to a new constitution, so they called their own convention, leading to an armed conflict called the Dorr rebellion. The Supreme Court ruled in Luther v. Borden that the enforcement of the right to a republican form of government under the federal constitution's Guarantee Clause was a political question up to Congress and the executive. Rhode Island declared martial law and requested federal troops, which President Tyler decided were unnecessary. The state quashed the rebellion by force, but the episode motivated the ratification of a new constitution by the old electorate. This was before the 14th Amendment, so a modern court might overturn Luther in a similar situation. -- Beland (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Pleasure Gardens

Resolved

In 1866, what would "Chelsea Pleasure Gardens" refer to? Obviously "a" pleasure garden in Chelsea, but which one would have been considered "the" Chelsea Pleasure Gardens in 1866 when referring to it as a performance venue? 2606:A000:1126:28D:90E5:ABEC:4279:A682 (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does your source say about the performance that it was a venue for? Perhaps this event can be looked up somewhere else. --69.159.11.113 (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its from here:[1] § The Great Farini And His Adopted Son Become The Flying Farinis — Good luck! —2606:A000:1126:28D:90E5:ABEC:4279:A682 (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's Cremorne Gardens, London, which was open in Chelsea at the time and featured circus performers [2]. --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a direct reference for Cremorne Gardens (scroll to next page). --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What a great answer. BTW, you can also spot them on the 1868 map of London. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great find, Wrongfilter -- thanks! —2606:A000:1126:28D:90E5:ABEC:4279:A682 (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is his dead body inside a pyramid?

Hello there. I have read that Andrew Rutherfurd, Lord Rutherfurd his grave looks interesting. It remembers me the grave of the freemason Charles Taze Russel. Is there any explanation why Rutherfurd is inside a pyramid, was he in any step of his life a freemason? --46.167.62.33 (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, the grave was actually designed for his wife Sophia, by William Henry Playfair. Mikenorton (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Pyramids are not used in the symbolism of UK or US Freemasonry (although they are used in some of the French rites). So having a pyramid shaped tomb or grave marker would not be an indication that someone had a tie to the fraternity. It would be meaningless to a British Freemason. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and by the way... there is no reliable evidence that Charles Taze Russel was a Freemason either. If anything he was mildly Anti-Masonic. Again, pyramids don’t mean Freemason. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this book also confirms it was for his wife Sophia. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's been reading too much Dan Brown, methinks ;) ——SerialNumber54129 16:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For a simple answer, see Egyptian Revival architecture in the British Isles. "...after 1830 the Egyptian Revival style was often used for cemetery buildings and monuments in cemeteries." Dimadick (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For why anyone since primordial times might want to be dead in a pyramid, see Benben. Some things never change. Though some others clearly do. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Russel was no freemason why is watchtower linked with freemasons and why is his pyramid on a cemetery which belongs to the local freemason temple? What is the evidence that he was not a freemason, a temple in Canada, over 8000 miles away which confirms 80 years after his death that he was no freemason? Why couldn't they open their mouth like 1 year after his death? Or earlier? -46.167.62.33 (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was Charles Taze Russell a Freemason?. Alansplodge (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note how the introduction introduces him as a possible reptile, but neglects to conclude he probably wasn't in the end. I'm not part of the online mob that suggests this old Kingdom is inherently creepy, deadly, dishonest or otherwise a threat to humanity, to be clear, and have no reason to believe Russell was a member of any temperament. But if a rational cold-blooder creature were to slumber under stone, a pyramid's walls would catch more direct solar radiation than a birdbox or mammalian dome's, and contain less air to warm more efficiently. No literal regenerative purpose for dead baskers, but maybe symbolic of something sunny and serpentine. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]