Humanities desk
< March 7	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 8

UK House of Commons votes

Does anybody know where I can find the ayes and nays on bills passed in the House of Commons 1960s-1990s? This keeps coming up with no results even when you enter the correct criteria. — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 05:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help? https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/divisions/index.html doktorb _words^deeds 05:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, thanks. — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 05:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being pedantic, it's "Aye and No" in the Commons. "Nay" is from the US Congress (how quaint). Alansplodge (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump v. Anderson

Regarding the Scoutus ruling in Trump v. Anderson, has it been (reasonably) argued that the Article One of the United States Constitution prohibition against ex post facto laws makes it impossible for Congress to issue a law or ruling that disqualifies Donald Trump fron the presidency? Sjö (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An ex post facto ("after the fact") law is intended to punish someone for doing something that was legal at the time they did it. Inciting an insurrection is already illegal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lawyer may furthermore (reasonably) argue that the term "ex post facto" is understood to be confined to laws of a criminal or penal nature,^[1] and that the disqualification clause of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not have the intention or effect of criminalizing acts or imposing penalties any more than the disqualification of minors or non-citizens does, and neither will new legislation for enforcing this provision. --Lambiam 16:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding what I consider to be the clear logic of Baseball Bugs’ position, disqualification laws in other contexts have been held to be unlawfully retroactive when applied to unlawful conduct preceding the enactment of the disqualification law. In this particular context, however, the historical evidence shows that the 14th Amendment was intended to apply to a past insurrection, so I do not think an ex post facto argument would work. John M Baker (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did the OP intend that this law pass both houses, and be signed into law, prior to this year’s election? That’s highly optimistic thinking, but since the election has not yet been held, then it would not (likely) be a case of ex post facto legislation. If it were to be enacted after the vote, it might be argued otherwise. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone's actions are considered crimes because of some law, but the law was only enacted after these actions were committed, then it is (with respect to these actions) an ex post facto law. This is independent of the question whether these consequences can have a retroactive effect. --Lambiam 16:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad and the Bible

Hello, reference desk! At Talk:Muhammad_and_the_Bible#Baháʼí we're struggling to find some WP-good sources that has written about what the Bahai faith thinks of the article topic. Please join and help us, if you can. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medicare

Medicare asks subscribers under many circumstances if a person has "end stage renal disease" or "black lung" for this matter. Why do they ask those questions? Thanks 107.191.0.90 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because US legislation gives Medicare additional resources to provide special services for patients with end stage renal disease. Black lung coverage is a separate program, since it is an occupational disease. Cullen328 (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See this fact sheet on end state renal disease care and this fact sheet on the black lung program. Cullen328 (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 107.191.0.90 (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama state income tax

Alabama apparently allows a $300 individual income tax deduction for each dependent.[2] Does anyone know if this has been successfully claimed when the dependent is a frozen embryo? Is there a limit to how many you can have? Just wondering, not seeking advice. I don't currently live in Alabama, but maybe California can set up a similar program. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you might be going with this, but I suspect that the annual cost of keeping an embryo frozen exceeds $300. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.44.161 (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't deduct not-yet-born children on your income tax forms, so presumably that same rule would apply to frozen embryos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current tax year (in which this fanciful ruling was made) ends December 31, 2024 … so, the answer is “No, no one has filed their 2024 taxes yet.” DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this reminding me the crazy marshmallows episode in the 2021 Ghostbusters: Afterlife movie? - That would be, because I've seen the movie, obviously.--Askedonty (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, YOU were the one! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. The one I had not seen, was that the one --Askedonty (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]