Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 January 11

= January 11 =

Nuclear option
(restored from archive)

In this article, it doesn't really become clear to me why only a simple majority is needed to decide on a constitutional matter while ending filibusters requires a qualified one. Why is the right to filibuster regarded as a more important constitutional good than others? Moreover, it says: They immediately put the issue to the full Senate – but other [also regular filibuster] decisions are made by "the full Senate", too, aren't they?--Hubon (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Filibuster rules" are not part of the Constitution, they're just "Senate convention". The Senate makes its own rules, which may include filibuster rules. If the Senate wanted to write their procedures that a speaker could be made to shut up with a simple majority vote, I believe they could. But convention is, pretty much every Senate has included "filibuster rules". Have there historically been any exceptions, where the majority party in a newly elected Senate did not agree to include these rules? Eliyohub (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * pretty much every Senate has included "filibuster rules" – What do you mean exactly? I thought the Senate's rules of procedure, including filibuster rules, have stayed more or less the same throughout the centuries...?--Hubon (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See Filibuster in the United States Senate for some background and history of the practice. You'll see there that the rules on filibuster have changed over time, including recently. The relevant Senate Rule is Senate Rule 22. To quote our article:
 * According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered if a majority vote from two-thirds from senators who are present and voting is received. The two-thirds required vote was a change made from the original three-fifths vote that was originally required.
 * In other words, filibuster is not a practice enshrined in the Constitution, but one enshrined in Senate rules and Conventions, which could in theory be changed - but such an attempt at change could itself be filibustered. So it's unlikely to happen unless in the extremely unlikely event of one party gaining a two-thirds majority in the Senate. But even if that happened, there would be no reason to change the rule, as in such a situation, filibuster is impossible anyways. (I suppose an exception here would be if the party in control of the Senate thought that following the next election, they would still have a majority, but not a two-thirds one, so would want to keep full control of the chamber by a simple majority vote). Or the equally unlikely event of a bipartisan agreement to change the rule. (Such agreements have in fact occurred at various times, see our article on the subject that I linked to above) Eliyohub (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be noted, in this discussion that one has to make a distinction between Big C "Constitution" (the written document written in 1787 and amended several times) and the little "c" constitution which is the principles by which a governing body operates. When a`principle or practice becomes enshrined for a long time, it becomes "constitutional" (little "c") even if it isn't Constitutional (Big "C", that is written in the document itself).  The entire British system of government is based on little "c" constitutional principles, and it works fine.  In the case, revocation of the filibuster would likely still create a constitutional crisis even though it isn't written into the Constitution, simply because it is so enshrined.  -- Jayron 32 17:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If one party did it unilaterally (which could only occur if they somehow obtained a super-majority in the Senate, an unlikely occurrence), you might be correct. The Supreme Court could not intervene, but there would likely be a degree of political turmoil. But as our article notes, changes to the rule have been made several times by bi-partisan agreement, or support of an element of the minority party in the Senate, as have been made agreements not to filibuster in a specific case, and these have not caused any serious turmoil, to my knowledge. Actually engaging in filibustering is more likely to be controversial, at least in some cases where it was done. Eliyohub (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The restraining feature that holds the two U.S. political parties at bay with regard to violating most rules and conventions to their own benefit is that, for the most part, in the Senate at least, neither party holds the body in perpetuity, and any weapon one creates to punish the other party can easily be used BY that party once it (inevitably) comes to power. As you can see at Political power in the United States over time, over the past 40 years, neither party has achieved long-term dominance, so there is a general leeriness to change rules which can come back to bite the same party in the ass a short while later.  -- Jayron 32 20:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered if a majority vote from two-thirds from senators who are present and voting is received. – I don't get it: You need a two-thirds majority to authorize a filibuster, or what? I thought the two-thirds rule is applied for ending a filibuster! Please, help...!--Hubon (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're confused. They're saying, any move to change to the "senate rule" which allows filibustering, could itself be filibustered, unless it was supposed by two thirds of the Senate. Makes sense now? Eliyohub (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Eliyohub, unfortunately not yet... a rule change itself could be filibustered if a majority vote from two-thirds from senators who are present and voting is received – so, doesn't that mean, you need a two-thirds majority to authorize a filibuster against the rule change? If so, how would that go together with the intention of filibuster as a minority right – if the majority gets to decide on the opportunity to make use of it? Sorry for my slow-wittedness... Best--Hubon (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree the current wording is very poor. It was changed here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate&diff=753669591&oldid=750895661] for clarity and other reasons but IMO became impossible to understand. I've partially reverted to the older wording [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate&diff=758722297&oldid=758081443]. The point is you need a 2/3 majority to end the filibuster for rule changes, unlike the 3/5 needed for most other filibusters. Edit: Actually just noticed further misleading info was introduced which I've also changed [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate&diff=758723857&oldid=758722931]. If anyone has time, they can go through the changes and make sure the other changes didn't have similar problems [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate&type=revision&diff=754555389&oldid=750895661]. BTW it's not just the numbers that are different but what numbers as 2/3 is present and voting but 3/5 is duly sworn, so nominally rule changes can happen with fewer Senators actually voting to end a filibuster. (Ignoring the nuclear option.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note as both Nuclear option and Filibuster in the United States Senate, it's unlikely you actually need a supermajority to change the rules. You only need a simple majority. It's not possible to filibuster it unless the majority and presiding officer allow it. Actually changing the rules when you have the necessary 67 may be controversial, but is far less likely to be a genuine crisis than using the nuclear option. That's why the later is called the nuclear option. Note that it isn't as simple as bi-partisan agreement, since that agreement can come only because of the threat to use the nuclear option (which has always been with only a simple majority). Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nil Einne, I'm sorry but I don't quite get your last statement: why do you think a bi-partisan agreement is "simpler" − in which respect? – than a nuclear option? In fact, I would probably disagree and say it's just the other way around: If the "nuclear threat" forms the basis of such a bi-partisan agreement, then the latter is actually more complex since it needs the additional precondition of this threat (besides the question whether actions based on agreements aren't more intricate than unilateral actions – like the nuclear option – in general, considering that at least two players are involved and not just one...). Best--Hubon (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood. I never said bi-partisan agreements are simpler. My point was that you can't simply say there was bi-partisan agreement so there won't be any controversy. The details of bi-partisan agreements often reveal there was some duress (in terms of threats to us the nuclear option etc) so it's more complicated than a simple bi-partisan agreement and you need to look actual situation rather than simply saying there was bi-partisan agreement. This was in response to Eliyohub's suggestion that when there is bi-partisan agreement there is unlikely to be any significant controversy, without considering the actual details surrounding the various bi-partisan agreements. Actually I still maintain that it's easily possible that a single party able to achieve the necessary 67 to change the rules could in some cases do so with less controversy that a nominally "bi-partisan agreement" where there was significant duress. (I should add a caveat that even without the nuclear option you don't technically need 67 due to the present and voting issue, although we have to assume it will normal be 67 if it matters unless someone tried some funny business.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Nil Einne - I'm not too sure about what some people are saying above. So it may be worth noting some background knowledge: Each Senate is a new entity that has no rules except what is in the Constitution, which says simple majority. Rules, including filibuster rules are adopted at the beginning of the session, by simple majority. So filibusters are impossible then, and by various means, with enough will, probably able to be ended later by a majority.John Z (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * John Z, now I'm really confused: What about the Standing Rules of the United States Senate???--Hubon (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW: In the lead of the aforementioned article, what is actually meant by "The stricter rules are often waived by unanimous consent." (That should also be explained in the article, I'd say)--Hubon (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The Senate is governed by its precedents as well as its written rules. By "precedents" is meant the history of how a given issue has been handled when it has come up in the past, and in particular, the rulings of the presiding officer on procedural issues that have arisen, and more rarely the votes of the senators themselves on such issues (such as in the case of an appeal from the decision of the chair). A difference between House and Senate custom, for example, is that in the House, the presiding officer invariably rules in favor of the majority party's position, and an appeal from the decision of the chair is treated as a party-discipline matter, and almost always immediately laid on the table in a party-line vote. In the Senate, on the other hand, an appeal can on rare occasions be used to change the rules&mdash;not the written standing rules, but the effective ones.

For example, the mechanism by which the "nuclear option" for non-Supreme Court nominees was triggered in the 2013 was that while in the face of extended debate ("filibuster") on a nomination, the majority leader (Sen. Reid) made a point of order that the vote required to invoke cloture for a non-Supreme Court nomination was by majority vote. The president pro tempore (Sen. Leahy) initially ruled that under the rules as they then existed, the point of order was not sustained. Reid then appealed from the decision of the chair, triggering a vote of the full Senate, which voted 52-48 not to sustain (i.e. to overrule) the chair's decision and thus effectively amend the rules, even though the words of the Standing Rules were not changed at all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Just making sure you saw my response, since the thread was archived soon after I posted it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Taiwanese flag banned/censored in Mainland China?
I recently heard somewhere online that the flag of Taiwan is considered an "unapproved political symbol" by mainland China, which meant that any video clips containing scenes depicting this flag would be deleted from any mainland-based video hosting websites if uploaded. Is there any truth to this? 24.38.6.106 (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, they don't want to show it on TV: see NY Times - Chinese News Media Censors Taiwan’s Flag, Again (May 27, 2016).  Alansplodge (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Existence of "Mont Terri Castle" in Switzerland, no source found
Hello, Today I was editing the page on "Mont Terri" which is a stub. In the opening paragraph, it states the following: A prehistoric site, Mont-Terri Castle, is located on the summit. This links to another stub wikipedia page about the castle. Both pages cite and link to the same source as proof that the castle exists; however clicking the link leads you to an error page. I cannot find any source elsewhere stating that this castle exists. If you search on Google, you will see that various random Facebook pages and tourism pages have simply copy-and-pasted the exact sentence from the wikipedia page. Can someone please help me find if this castle is even real and if so, we can properly cite it in the wikipedia pages. It would be nice to have a photo as well. --UltravioletAlien (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Googling the subject produces some images. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Searching in French was more fruitful; I found: "Le Mont Terri, communément appelé "camp de Jules César ", se trouve sur les contreforts septentrionaux de la chaîne jurassienne, au pied du col des Rangiers qui permet de relier l’Ajoie et la vallée de Delémont". It goes on to say that it was first occupied in the Neolithic period and finally destroyed in about 50 BC during the Gallic Wars.
 * Mont Terri (site archéologique, Cornol) has more detail and might be a more reliable reference; it quotes a list of sources and the authors are Claude Juillerat andt François Schifferdecker (réd.), "Guide archéologique du Jura et du Jura bernois". Alansplodge (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a source (in French). There is a ruined tower, not a really a castle. The page is a description of an archaeological survey of the site, and says there are Neolithic and Bronze Age artefacts, as well as a rampart dating from a period of use as a Roman military camp around 58-50 BC. It may have been occupied again in the fourth century and the ruins of the 13th-century tower are still visible. (P.S. I've wikilinked your stub article so others can read it). 184.147.116.166 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * User:UltravioletAlien, I have now used these sources to expand the text of our article - see Mont-Terri Castle. Alansplodge (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Outstanding. This is a good example of the value of the ref desks, where they can lead to new information within the articles. It's unfortunate that there is no comprehensive list of such items. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:Baseball Bugs, you're too kind. Good luck compiling the list :-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)