Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 November 20

= November 20 =

How are members of Congress expected to vote?
I assume that there is no "one correct answer" to this question, but I will ask it nonetheless. When an individual member of Congress (in the USA) votes on bills, is he supposed to cast his vote in order to reflect the will of his constituents? Or is he supposed to cast his vote according to his own personal beliefs? Is there any generally accepted guideline in this regard? Or is it just completely up to that individual congressman? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D13:6D70:CCAD:9B1:8392:7C6B (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It depends on the given issue. Members of either party tend to believe in the overall goals of their party, but there's also a fair amount of individuality. Congressmen are likely to be the most interested in supporting or opposing something based on what they think will help them get re-elected. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The best answer is probably "yes". There isn't really any "guideline" other than what those who elected the Congressmember expect. The U.S. has a "weak" party system, in part because most of the framers didn't want political parties in the first place. Contrast with parliamentary systems, where the party a member belongs to has more power over how the member is "supposed" to vote; the general expectation is that party members are expected to vote the "party line" except for conscience votes, although the strength of these expectations and their enforcement inevitably varies between countries and over time. Whip and party discipline have some information. That's not to say political parties in the U.S. have no influence at all over Congress. If a Congressmember defies their party enough, they won't be getting any good committee appointments, which are very important for exercising influence, and the party won't spend money on their campaigns unless they think losing the seat to the other party would be worse. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If a Congressmember defies their party enough, they won't be getting any good committee appointments ... and the party won't spend money on their campaigns unless they think losing the seat to the other party would be worse. True.  And they likely would not get re-elected.  (At least not by members of their own party.  Conceivably, though, by the other party.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D13:6D70:CCAD:9B1:8392:7C6B (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it would depend on the specific issues. It's not uncommon for the national party to want one thing and a representative's constituents to want something different. To again contrast with parliamentary systems, in the U.S. voters mostly decide through primary elections which candidate runs under a party's banner. Party leadership has little say. This has been highlighted recently by the Tea Party movement challenging "establishment" Republican candidates in Republican primaries. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * See delegate model of representation and trustee model of representation. Edmund Burke gave his famous speech to the electors of Bristol in which he favored the trustee model, saying "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." I encourage you to read the whole thing. Neutralitytalk 16:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Given that legislators usually have a clearly known ideology when they are running for office, they don't normally feel like they are betraying the constituents who elected them. Representing their constituency often just comes down to pork; who can get the most federal money for their local districts, avoid having the military base in their state shut down, or get the most money for public works.  Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia was legendary for the federal money for public works he got directed to his state.  But there are other factors, such as this comment from TheHill.Com about Democrats passing a House bill limiting immigration from Iraq and Syria which Obama had threatened to veto: "The 47 Democrats who voted for the bill ranged from centrist Blue Dogs, (to) vulnerable lawmakers in tough reelection races....".  In other words, public sentiment becomes more important when your opponent can say you ignored it come election time. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. 2602:252:D13:6D70:1C88:FCBE:AF12:C75D (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Creation
I've read that Adam and Eve were created. I've also read that children were created at conception, and that God designed everyone individually. What I don't get is whether the use of "creation" means the same thing in both instances. If God is believed to design a baby's features inside the womb, then where's the father's role? And what about genetics and maladaptive genetic traits? 140.254.70.25 (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there a formal term of this theology? 140.254.70.25 (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * First, define "God". If "God" equates to "Nature", then it works. Also, see Creationism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your question is irrelevant, as this is not what happens in the real world. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not necessarily true. As I said, it depends on how you define "God". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since this was posted at the humanities desk rather than science, I'll assume the OP is looking for an "in universe" answer from the perspective of Christian theology (I assume Christian, sorry if you're looking for other religions which include Adam & Eve.) I'd say that the two types of creation are different in character since the first one (Adam & Eve, or at least Adam) did not require any human action. God's "creation" of children in the womb has a component of human action to it, and so you could say that it's different. (Someone who knows more theology than me can probably find classical references discussing this.) You see this clearly in various Biblical divine conceptions, which are regarded as very special and different from ordinary conceptions.
 * As for maladaptive genetic traits, this is a well-known argument against creationism: Argument from poor design, sometimes called "unintelligent design" or "incompetent design". You can see some creationist responses on that page, typically that human frailty is an important part of God's design (either by God's original intention or a result from Adam's sin, human weakness is a feature, not a bug, in most Christian theology), and so we should not expect our bodies to be perfectly constructed. Staecker (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Allegorical interpretations of Genesis are adhered to by many (and possibly most) Christians, if you want to take that perspective. Especially since the Big Bang is fully acceptable cosmology according to the Catholic Church.  Heck, it was a Catholic Priest who invented the idea. -- Jayron 32 16:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Predestination is the term for this idea. See also Creationism (soul) and Traducianism. Tevildo (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There's quite a lot of "predestination" built into DNA. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The term ex nihilo explains quite a bit of your confusion. The Genesis story is about ex nihilo "creation", which differs from how theologians would regard the "creation" of children in 2015. --Dweller (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

BVI Legal Profession Act 2015
Please can you clarify which provisions relating to the admission of English qualified lawyers and practice overseas were excluded from the proclamation when bringing it into force? Also is there any indication as to when these severed provisions might be proclaimed as operational? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.0.160 (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See BVI Bar Association for our article, although it's fairly incomplete on the exact provisions of the Act. This article from Withers LLP goes into some more detail, and states that the act "is expected to come into force in 2016".  This article from Maples and Calder has information about the operation of the Act. Tevildo (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Early 20th century nature illustrator Lang
File:Annual report (1901) (14563604959).jpg, File:Annual report (1901) (14563604959).jpg and other similar images are simply signed "Lang". Does anyone know the full name of this illustrator (birth & death dates would also be very nice). - Jmabel &#124; Talk 17:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have tried doing a google reverse image search on the image posted here, but had no luck. μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I found Louis Lang (1814-1893), an artist who worked in the US; he was already dead by 1901, not that this entirely rules him out as a suspect, but he seems to have been more of a studio painter than an illustrator. I got lots of results for Andrew Lang who produced illustrated books about fairies, but somebody else did the pictures. Alansplodge (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Prints of the mysterious Mr (or Ms?) Lang's illustrations from the Fish and Game Commission report are readily available (here, for instance), but I've not been able to find any more details on the artist. The report itself doesn't have the information, unfortunately.  One name that does come up frequently is Hamilton Mack Laing (1883 - 1982) - he's not the Fish and Game artist (he was only 18 in 1901, and still living in Canada), but he seems reasonably article-worthy. Tevildo (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Tineye similarly finds no other copies. 99.235.223.170 (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I've created a Commons:Category:Lang (artist) as a place to bring together this person's work as I encounter it in Commons files. For now I can't really do any better. - 04:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)