Humanities desk
< May 28	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	Current desk >

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.

May 29

US lawsuits

Is there a lawsuit (judged, not settled out-of-court) for all 2,550 possible concatenations of US states and USA? (100 lawsuits named United States v./vs. state or vice versa, 2,450 named state vs state). Have even half of them happened yet? Have all 13x12+26 concatenations of the Original 13 and the US happened yet? Is DC allowed to sue the US or a state or vice versa? Did US courts ever decide a suit between sovereign countries? Has New York City ever sued New York State or vice versa? What would the short form name be if a government sues the same government more than once in a year? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the U.S. Constitution (Article 3, Section 2), the Supreme court has "original jurisdiction" over certain types of cases "in which a state shall be a party", including "controversies between two or more states". For a speciific case, see New Jersey v. New York. I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that there haven't been 2,450 lawsuits of this type between all theoretical permutations (what reason would Idaho have to sue Florida??), but there has been more than one lawsuit over the years between certain specific pairs of states (see New York v. New Jersey (2023) etc). AnonMoos (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The few dozen in the category do seem to be overwhelmingly regional spats like border disputes though there is a Texas v. New Jersey and Texas v. Pennsylvania. Do any pairs sharing a land border not have lawsuits both ways yet? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re city vs state, google returns: City of New York v. State of New York. I'd imagine there are more. -- Avocado (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was tried in a New York state court under state law. I don't know if all states allow such suits. AnonMoos (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NY Trump trial

Based on reading about this trial, I gather that in NY, falsifying business records for the hell of it (not in furtherance of another crime) is a misdemeanor, but falsifying them in furtherance of another crime (the "object offense") is a felony. Let's assume the NY DOJ doesn't put on gazillion dollar media spectacle trials to pursue people for misdemeanors. They are trying Trump for falsifying records for purposes of breaking election law. The thing is, the election law in question is both a federal law (they can't try him for it in NY state court) and very very complicated. And the election law part of this is not in Trump's NY indictment. I haven't seen the jury instructions so maybe they shed some light on this issue. What I'm wondering is, assuming the NY jury returns a conviction, does that only establish a misdemeanor, with a separate federal trial on the election law vio to bump the NY charge up to a felony? Or are they supposed to say he did it for another crime without having to establish that whatever he was trying to do was actually a crime? I haven't seen any press coverage saying this outright, but there is a fair amount (including from anti-Trump writers) skeptical of the process.

In general, if there is a two-element crime, do you usually have to prove both elements in the same trial, or can you have a separate trial for each element? The first element (falsification) is a criminal charge in its own right, so it's a legitimate (misdemeanor) criminal trial, but the second element (furtherance of another offense) seems to be partly in limbo.

I'm not seeking legal advice, Trump can pay his own lawyers and IANAL. Thanks. (It's also possible that I have this story at least partially wrong, due to unwittingly reading propaganda). 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:98EB (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a US lawyer so can't comment on the specifics, but having an offence dependent on the commission of another offence that hasn't been charged, even an offence under the laws of a different jurisdiction, is not unusual. Money laundering offences will often work like this, for instance: you can launder in jurisdiction 1 the proceeds of a crime committed in jurisdiction 2 (e.g. you can commit a fraud in Paris and then launder the proceeds through a bank in London), and you can be tried for the money laundering in jurisdiction 1 regardless of whether there has been or will be a prosecution in jurisdiction 2 for the underlying crime. The point is that even if you can only be tried in a particular jurisdiction for a particular crime, that doesn't stop the prosecuting authorities of another jurisdiction establishing as a fact that you have committed that crime in a prosecution for another crime. I suspect that that is similar to how the particular law works here, as everything I have read says that he is on trial for the felony version of the offence charged in New York. Proteus (Talk) 10:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there have been some updates today mentioning the NY election law and the jury instructions. Good point about money laundering and thanks for that info. If Trump is convicted it will be interesting to see how the appeals play out. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:98EB (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not a lawyer; but I have followed the CNN cover, and did read the judges instructions (which seemligly by NY law are open to read for the whole world, except for those 12 people (+ their potential replacements) to which the instructions are directed...). The judge very explicitly explained that a "guilty" verdict should be appropriate if and only if the jury finds that "beyond a reasonable doubt" Trump has comitted or knowingly induced others to falsify business records and had done so with the intention to commit or cover (another) crime. Thus, as far as I understand the instructions, if the jury should find Trump guilty of just the falsification (which in itself just would be a misdemenour), but not with the aforementioned intent, then their verdict should be "not guilty". In other words, the prosecution claimed that Trump is guilty of the combined two element crime, and the jury should decide on whether he was guilty as accused, not on whether he in fact is guilty of something else—and just falsifying the records but without the intent to commit or cover a crimee indeed is considered as "something else". (On the other hand, they may be declare him guilty of the combined crime on some of the 34 charges, but not guilty on others.) Was this clear?

The other question IMHO is really interesting; but it partly may be based on a misunderstanding. The prosecution has offered three "theories" for what crimes Trump intended to commit or cover up. As far as I understand, only one of them concerns the federal election law. One of the others concerns breaking the (state) taxation laws in New York. The third concerns other book-keeping crimes. By the judge's instruction, if the jury finds that Trump intended to commit or cover any one of these three offenses, then the second part of the prerequisites for a "guilty" verdict indeed is fulfilled. Now, as far as I followed the CNN summaries, the prosecution indeed stressed the election law offenses they claimed Trump has committed; but the other two possibilities still are available and could be considered in the jury's deliberation. (Still, if they do declare Trump guilty on some or all charges, then I personally suspect that this point may be used as one of the grounds for an appeal. However, since this is just a speculation by a non-lawyer, my suspicion isn't a proper part of an answer to your question.) JoergenB (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump can pay his own lawyers, but will he? —Tamfang (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flags at presidential inaugurations: the Hawaiian anomaly

At US presidential inaugurations, five national flags are hung vertically at the Capitol: a 50-star flag in the center, flanked to either side by the first flag representing the new president's state of residence, flanked on the ends by two 13-star Betsy Ross flags. If the president is from one of the 13 colonies, their "state flag" uses the Hopkinson-style row-and-column arrangement, preventing a clash with the Betsy Ross's star circle. But what happens when the new president is from Hawaii? (And no, Obama doesn't count – he was an Illinoisan for this purpose.) Would there be three identical 50-star flags flanked by two Betsy Rosses? Or would they loop back to using 13-star Hopkinson flags to break things up? Or would they simply use three flags instead of five? Or perhaps Betsy-50-Betsy-50-Betsy, or 50-Betsy-50-Betsy-50? 71.126.56.57 (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might have to wait and see. Alansplodge (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nye Bevan and Tredegarisation

Aneurin Bevan is often quoted as saying "All I am doing is extending to the entire population of Britain the benefits we had in Tredegar for a generation or more. We are going to Tredegar-ise you." but I have never seen a precise citation. According to the South Wales Argus 5th July 2018 "Where and when he said this, appears lost in the mists of 20th Century political time. Bevan's most recently published biographer Nick Thomas-Symonds did not include it in his 2014 book Nye: The Political Life of Aneurin Bevan because he could not locate its source." I can't find it in Michael Foot or John Campbell either. Can anyone here nail it down? Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nye Bevan, mastermind of the NHS said, ‘There was a complete health service in Swindon. All we had to do was expand it to the country.'[1]

Possibly he found it a useful quote to butter up whichever locality he was currently speaking to? -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 12:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that would depend on the locality's view of Tredegar. Or if they had ever even heard of it... ? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was suggesting he used the quote anywhere, but changed the name to Tredegar/Swindon/wherever he was speaking, to imply that they had inspired the NHS. I believe there were local health schemes at many places around the country, possibly started or assisted by big employers. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 15:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources for Swindon are not better than (i.e. just as bad as) those for Tredegar. DuncanHill (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bevan had very specific reasons to refer to Tredegar. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and that reference indeed contained the (alleged) quote "we will Tredegar-ise you" - but it seemed a bit anecdotical IMHO. JoergenB (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, there is nothing that I have been able to find that says when he said it, where, or to whom. I have found a suggestion that it was from a film in the 70s or 80s. DuncanHill (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argument made only to illustrate a point

Hello, What is the name of an argument that is made purely to illustrate a point about a larger situation? For example, if someone were to argue that America is a pluralist (interest-group-centered) democracy, not because they think that it actually is but because they want to call attention to/promote their view of the larger situation, which is the outsize influence of interest groups in America. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such as what you're doing with this question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing I could find is "bad-faith argument," but that's not specific to what I'm saying.

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I call making an argument solely because one thinks it will carry weight with someone, without believing in its factualness or holding the values associated with it, concern trolling, and if it's appealing specifically to some prejudice, demagoguery. OTOH, designating an argument as tentative and provisional because you intend to deboonk it later is called "playing Devil's advocate" and is a valid tactic. Aecho6Ee (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary has a much more restricted definition of the verb concern troll, being an online activity with a disruptive purpose. --Lambiam 06:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary as our ally. The notion of a provisional process seems to be hinting at the until now rather undefined "attention-getter" required at the attention step in Monroe's motivated sequence. --Askedonty (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on Truthiness and alternative facts. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of argument. DuncanHill (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thought experiment. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 11:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reductio ad absurdum is related. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.173 (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, what? Isn't the term just rhetoric? Remsense诉 12:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very generic term. Parallelism, for example, is a very common rhetorical device that has nothing to do with the essentially dishonest situation sketched in the question. --Lambiam 15:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I've intentionally been more than a bit imprecise. In my day to day lexicon, I would actually refer to what the OP describes simply as a "rhetorical argument", i.e. that it serves only metatextual ends in the discourse and the literal meaning of the argument itself doesn't matter. Do other people say this? I think I extended it from the common "rhetorical question" idiom but that seems reasonable enough. Remsense诉 15:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe just exempli gratia? Alansplodge (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your question and example is in error. You've defined elite theory, not a pluralist democracy. If an outsized interest group has major influence, that's what we call an "elite democracy", which is exactly what the US has now. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]