Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 June 9

= June 9 =

The Wool Road, New South Wales, and James Holman, the Blind Traveller
Our article The Wool Road (New South Wales) says "In 1831, Robert Futter of Bungonia and George Galbraith of Nerriga formed an expedition to find a path from Nerriga to Jervis Bay. The others making up the expedition were William Ryrie, James Holman, and two Aboriginal guides whose names are not known. Holman later recounted that the route they had taken from Yerock Flat (west of Sassafras Mountain) to the coast was taken against the advice of the Aboriginal guides, who had strongly suggested following the range further to the north. Holman later recognised that had they done so they could have found a far easier route for a road to Jervis Bay...". I would be interested to know if this James Holman was the James Holman known as "The Blind Traveller", who wrote Voyage Round the World, including Travels in Africa, Asia, Australasia, America, etc, from 1827 to 1832, 4 vols, 1834-1835. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes. It is described in his book from page 451. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Pleasure, thanks for the interesting question. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Kinmei
In the article Emperor Kinmei, it state he “is the first Japanese Emperor for whom contemporary historiography is able to assign verifiable dates.” What is this contemporary historiography being spoken of? The Kojiki and Nihon Shoki, two of oldest extant Japanese text dates to the 8th-century. Even the lost Tennōki and Kokki written by his grandson Prince Shōtoku are not contemporaneous to Kinmei‘s reign. KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Contemporary historiography" doesn't mean only Japanese texts. Without having read the article, it probably safe to assume it's referring to a contemporary Chinese source.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 06:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If so which Chinese source? KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Can the US Supreme Court force US states to have 3+ legislative houses?
Can the US Supreme Court force US states to have 3+ legislative houses (as in, force them to create at least one additional legislative house) if it will (hypothetically) hear a case in regards to this and will find something in the US Constitution (such as the guarantee clause--assuming that of course SCOTUS declares this clause to actually be justicable) that it claims requires US states to have 3+ legislative houses? Futurist110 (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It's hard to predict what a future hypothetical Supreme Court might or might not do, but considering that there's been no attempt to enforce bicamerality onto Nebraska, it's difficult to imagine tricamerality becoming a burning issue... AnonMoos (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * if there was a case with merit enough, if the SCOTUS found that the constitution actually mandated more houses... well, of course, the SCOTUS job would be to say so, and it could do it; you used a number of strong enough if for anything to happen. Looks like a really weird hypothetic world, though. Could be a funny(?) plot for a novel, I guess. Gem fr (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Under what circumstances do you imagine that such a case would arise? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if the idea of having 3+ legislative houses became really popular and yet some US states would have been holdouts in regards to this. It's an extremely massive longshot, no doubt, but it's not 100% impossible. Futurist110 (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How many states or nations currently have tricameral legislatures? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually the answer is one: Nebraska. The others are all bicameral. See List of United States state legislatures. I'm curious to know where you've ever seen an argument for a tricameral legislature. And keep in mind that "popularity" doesn't figure into a Supreme Court case. Someone would have to argue that a one or two level legislature somehow fails the constitutional requirement for a republican form of government. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Nebraska legislature is actually unicameral--not tricameral. As for an argument in favor of a tricameral legislature, well, one could theoretically argue that it could result in a more focused state legislature. Basically, there would be more legislators and thus different legislative houses could focus on different aspects of the law/different bills.
 * Yes, unicameral. No tricamerals. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I easily envision tricameral: a one man-one vote (aka "common" or "representative"), a one place-one vote (aka "senate"), and a one taxed dollar-one vote (aka "census"). Since a Republic must rely on subsidiarity, the senate would be main body. Gem fr (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the argument in favor of a unicameral legislature (more efficient government) would be more solid, but it's harder to make that argument on a constitutional level since the US Constitution implicitly allows US states to have more than one legislative house. Futurist110 (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind that in a (large enough) republic proper, there are many lesser level (municipal/county/...) bodies with legislative power (albeit limited in scope). Should those disappear, gone is the balance of power, gone is the republic, and born is the single-party ran, "democratic people's republic". The addition of a 3th house won't help. Gem fr (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The actual case where a US Supreme Court ruling has most affected the composition of many state legislatures was probably Reynolds v. Sims in 1964. Previously many states had a state senate with equal representation for each county (analogous to the US senate with equal representation for each state) or similar arrangements. In Reynolds the Supreme Court found that this was unconstitutional. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Funny thing. So basically SCOTUS said state legislature should be unicameral (if all houses are elected the same way, well, there is no point of having several of them). Gem fr (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not exactly the same. The houses can have different term lengths. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't see that the decision stops states electing people in a different way. They just need to ensure equal representation. I wonder whether states could use large or even state wide constituency with some form of Proportional representation for their state upper houses while keeping the smaller constituencies based on FPTP that they seem to love in the US for the lower house. In fact the decision itself doesn't seem to clearly preclude something weird like females and males voting separately provided their electoral power is fairly proportional although it's possible or even likely other decisions would preclude this. (Definitely it seems unlikely groupings based on self identified racial or ethnic groups would be allowed even if the voting power is proportional but again that arises because of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 etc, not the highlighted decision. Although incidentally, the VRA slightly postdated the decision.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

There is also the executive branch to worry about. Here is Trump's successor, changing the official language of the USA: 173.228.123.207 (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Can't change what doesn't exist. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

What a great idea! Who wouldn't want more politicians to feed at the public trough? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What about having one legislative house for each US state as opposed to two or three legislative houses? Futurist110 (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's up to the individual states to decide. And it would seem they have decided. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * basically republicanism is about mistrust of power, and a la montesquieu Separation of powers to cope with power abuses, so having 2 houses in check of each other makes sense. Gem fr (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Executive by committee
In most democratic governments, legislative power is vested in a group of people, while the executive is a single individual. Is there, or has there ever been, a democratic government with a multi-person executive branch? → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 14:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Swiss Federal Council for one. Its seven members are considered co-equal even though there is a rotating presidency. Xuxl (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also the Strategeion.
 * Now, what do you mean by "the executive is a single individual"? Obviously, the government is a group of people, not a single individual. Do you have the king/queen of "democratic" monarchies in mind? What literally makes those countries democratic is the fact that, despite the monarch having nominal power, he can do nothing and is under complete control of the government. Actually, you may argue that the executive power put to a single person ipso facto makes you NOT a democracy. Other Western countries without king call themselves Republic for a reason. Gem fr (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * San Marino has two Captains Regent, who are elected, but they are heads of state with mostly symbolic power. I'm not sure how "executive" maps onto the system there. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The OP probably should have said chief executive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a poem about that. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Real world is complicated. The chief need support, so even a dictator depends on other, and in groups some people have more influence and power that others (in legislative houses: speaker, leader, whip...). For instance, while the Strategeion was a group, Miltiades acted as the real leader in battle of Marathon.
 * You also will find multi-person executive branch in non-democratic regime: junta (governing body).
 * The important thing is, many people can talk (in parliaments or in war councils) and that is good, while, when it comes to real action, you better follow a single course set by a single person. And this just nothing to do with the regime being democratic or not.
 * What will make a difference in democracy is whether the chief is always the same and merely listen to advices he will follow or not as he wishes (from people he chooses), or if he follows the orders of the whole group and will be changed if he doesn't. Not whether the executive is collective or single. Gem fr (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For another example, see Supreme Executive Council of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a twelve-member council that served as Pennsylvania's chief executive.  As far as I can tell from that article, the president of the council, analogous to the governor of Pennsylvania today, was more of a primus inter pares.  Nyttend (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * See also Cabinet of the United Kingdom: "The Cabinet is the ultimate decision-making body of the executive within the Westminster system of government in traditional constitutional theory". See also Cabinet collective responsibility. Alansplodge (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Theocracies are the only construct where executive power lies solely with a single entity, God (in various spellings and concepts). Even in Christianity we have a triumvirate (well, one is avian) which may - or may not - divine major decisions by majority.  The Holy Sprit, being a bird, probably tweets.  Satan currently is in opposition and commands the majority of the “lower house”.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)