Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 September 25

= September 25 =

Rome-Carthage peace treaty
Per Third Punic War, "a formal peace treaty was signed by Ugo Vetere and Chedli Klibi, the mayors of Rome and the modern city of Carthage, respectively, on 5 February 1985; 2,131 years after the war ended". While I understand it's symbolic, a peace treaty apparently can be signed only if both belligerents survive the war, particularly the losing side. Because contemporary Carthage was conquered and destroyed by the Romans, with its population being largely sold into slavery, apparently a peace treaty made no sense. The article states that "the site of Carthage was rebuilt as a Roman city by Julius Caesar, and would become one of the main cities of Roman Africa", but even then signing a peace treaty doesn't make sense. Given that, is the 1985 peace treaty actually null and void from a legal perspective? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it was just an opportunity for a friendly celebration of shared history, rather than a serious attempt at a legal instrument. An analogy is the Treaty of Berwick, 1966 which supposedly ended the participation of the town of Berwick-on-Tweed in the Crimean War (Berwick was specifically mentioned in Britain's 1854 declaration of war on Russia, due to the town's peculiar status on the Anglo-Scottish border, but was not mentioned in the Treaty of Paris (1856) which ended the conflict). 176.227.136.190 (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Except, Berwick-upon-Tweed makes it clear that such a story is apocryphal. Pity. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  15:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Neither Rome (in the sense of the Roman Empire, which ended in 1453 CE) or Carthage (in the sense of, well, Carthage, which ended in 146 BCE) exists anymore. The entities that fought that war don't exist, so there's no sense in any peace treaty between them.  There are no entities to enter into such an agreement.  -- Jayron 32 17:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Mayors are not heads of state, and cities cannot enter into binding international agreements (at least as distinct from a business contract). It's best to view this sort of thing as a sister city arrangement. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we need to change our article. An encyclopedia shouldn't be describing this kind of well-intentioned fluff as "a formal peace treaty". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

2000 Florida recount question
In the 2000 SCOTUS Bush v. Gore case, there was one particular sentence that struck out at me:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

"Furthermore, the citizen who marks two candidates, only one of which is discernable by the machine, will have his vote counted even though it should have been read as an invalid ballot."

Here is the entire paragraph, with the relevant sentence italicized:

In addition, the recounts in these three counties were not limited to so-called undervotes but extended to all of the ballots. The distinction has real consequences. A manual recount of all ballots identifies not only those ballots which show no vote but also those which contain more than one, the so-called overvotes. Neither category will be counted by the machine. This is not a trivial concern. At oral argument, respondents estimated there are as many as 110,000 overvotes statewide. As a result, the citizen whose ballot was not read by a machine because he failed to vote for a candidate in a way readable by a machine may still have his vote counted in a manual recount; on the other hand, the citizen who marks two candidates in a way discernable by the machine will not have the same opportunity to have his vote count, even if a manual examination of the ballot would reveal the requisite indicia of intent. Furthermore, the citizen who marks two candidates, only one of which is discernable by the machine, will have his vote counted even though it should have been read as an invalid ballot. The State Supreme Court’s inclusion of vote counts based on these variant standards exemplifies concerns with the remedial processes that were under way.

---

My question is this--were there genuinely cases of ballots in Florida in 2000 where a voter made two marks on their ballot (for a particular race) but a voting machine only read one of these marks and thus treated this ballot as a valid vote instead of as an invalid ballot like it was supposed to have been treated? If so, do we have any idea of just how many such ballots there were in Florida in 2000? Futurist110 (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that particular situation could be caused by a "hanging chad"; punching two holes but one of the two wasn't a complete punch that separated the punched paper that managed to not separate when being fed through the machine. How many of these were there? I don't really know. I suspect that it's not possible to really know with the weird ones like hanging chads, since I doubt individual ballots were serialized such that a recheck of any given ballot could be compared against the initial scan result. The hanging chad situation, as I understand it, is such that a ballot may have indeed been scanned correctly even though the chad was still partly attached (e.g., it was folded under when it went through the scanner), so just finding all the ballots with hanging chads doesn't necessarily mean you've got an exact number to add or subtract to any given total. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got a question--if there was a hanging chad but no other mark on the ballot, then it was an undervote, correct? Meanwhile, if there was a hanging chad but also another mark on the ballot, then it was treated as a valid vote even though it should have been treated as an overvote, correct?


 * BTW, what difference does it make whether or not the chad was folded? Futurist110 (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe the under- and over- vote counts were tabulated in the NORC survey in 2001 (try some search terms related to "NORC survey" and "Florida recount"). The counting schemes were litigated separately in the different contested Florida districts and the court decisions went in various directions (not consistent with each other), after which the Florida supreme court and then SCOTUS ok'd that outcome.  There was extensive news reporting at the time, in mind-numbing detail, but I don't know if a book was ever written about it.  There should really be one. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:DDAF (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * But shouldn't a genuinely fair Florida recount have also included all of the ballots that were classified by Florida's voting machines as valid/legal votes to determine if any of them were mistakenly counted by the machines? Please look at my SCOTUS quoted sentence from Bush v. Gore at the beginning of my question here. Futurist110 (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There were only recounts in the districts where one or both of the candidates asked for them. That left a bunch without recounts.  Gore took some criticism for only requesting recounts in some specific disputed districts, instead of all over the state.  Keep in mind that in a conflict of that type, neither side is expected to want a fair outcome, despite their posturing.  They want an outcome that favors themselves, regardless of whether that is fair.  So they picked their strategies accordingly. There are a few books about the FL recount (one by Jake Tapper and one by Jeffrey Toobin come to mind) that you might want to read if you're trying to dig into the history of this subject.  Neither goes into the minutiae of hanging chads but both have some coverage of the different lawsuits and maneuvers that took place.  News reporting of the time is probably still accessible, at least through libraries.  There was a lot. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:DDAF (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is not correct. There was a statewide recount under way supervised by Judge Terry Lewis. That's what the Supreme Court stopped.John Z (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually already read a lot about the 2000 Florida recount and subsequent legal battles over the last several years, for what it's worth. My main interest right now is in the question of ballots that were classified by the Florida voting machines as legal/valid votes but that should have been treated as being invalid ballots instead. Hence my original post here.


 * Also, Yes, I'm well-aware that wanting to win can cause one to want to engage in strategies that are morally questionable, such as asking for selective recounts. Nothing new here. Futurist110 (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I believe the basic answer to your question above overvotes is as stated: the matter was contested in a lot of separate lawsuits and the decisions by the various courts involved were not consistent with each other. And neither candidate's legal team was consistent on how it wanted a given type of vote treated.  Basically each guy wanted to reject questionable votes in districts favoring the other guy, and protect similar votes in districts favoring themselves.  Bush won most of lawsuits if I'm not mistaken.  2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:DDAF (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

SCOTUS term limits
Proposal to legislatively limit SCOTUS justices to 18 years on SCOTUS. After that they go back to lower courts (so they still have lifetime judicial appointments) and keep their old salary. It wouldn't apply to current justices, but only those installed after the new law goes into effect. Constitutional? Ummm, unclear according to the article. Probably a court would have to decide: in particular, presumably it would reach SCOTUS itself. So a) conflict of interest? b) is it even that clear (existing analysis, case law) that (assuming that, like all institutions, that SCOTUS wants to preserve its own power) SCOTUS would tend to oppose this? Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:DDAF (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The US Constitution explicitly states that federal judges are to serve for life if they will exhibit good behavior, no? If so, such a bill would go against clear US constitutional text, no? So, what US constitutional amendment would actually give the US Congress the authority to pass such a bill? Futurist110 (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is really only one way to enact term limits on the Supreme Court... a Constitutional Amendment. This is how term limits were imposed on the Presidency. It is the only way to impose term limits on the other two branches of government. Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Doh!DOR (HK) (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The proponents can say that the termed-out judges get moved from one court to another, but they stay on as federal judges and they don't get a salary cut, so that satisfies the words in the constitution. Opponents would say they have to stay on the same court as before, or the same level of court.  So there would be a question of constitutional interpretation that would have to be decided by courts.  I don't see a no-brainer.  I think there have been some times when the federal districts or appellate circuits have been reorganized, resulting in judges getting moved from one district or circuit to another, and I don't think there were constitutional objections when that happened.  I don't know if there has ever been an attempt to kick appellate judges down to the district level.  That would be similar to this scotus proposal.  2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:DDAF (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * So you’re taking a cynical view of the idea of the Court deciding the constitutionality of a law applying to itself, and I applaud that. But the reality is that there is much more to be lost by the Court wrongfully taking a position for the personal benefit of the Justices. So, my belief is that the Court would interpret this law in a reasonable manner, and probably strike it down as contrary to the Constitution. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, IMHO, SCOTUS should not abstain from taking on this case simply because this is a case that affects SCOTUS. I completely agree with you that the grounds for striking down this law as being unconstitutional should be pretty strong, though--if not very strong. Futurist110 (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The only wiggle-room could be a more precise definition of what "good behavior" means. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The key to the claims that it's constitutional is reference to (1) statutes that permit judges to take senior status without retiring and (2) that the Jeffersonian repeal of the Midnight Judges Act eliminated courts and therefore judgeships. The key distinctions are that (1) senior status is voluntary, as far as I know is never mandatory, and is already available to the Justices (Sandra Day O'Connor being a famous example of a Justice taking senior status and [//www.washingtonpost.com/politics/retired-supreme-court-justices-still-judge--and-get-judged/2013/03/10/1b22943c-897f-11e2-8d72-dc76641cb8d4_story.html still periodically sitting by designation on lower courts]); and (2) the lower courts are creatures of statute, though authorized by Article III, and may be eliminated or reorganized by statute—the Supreme Court is a creature wholly of the Constitution and may not be eliminated except by Constitutional amendment. I suppose it's possible that Congress could seek to define "good behavior" in a manner that requires submitting to and passing a cognitive and physical examination periodically, but I don't think redefining it as requiring retirement at a certain age or after a certain number of years of service would pass muster. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would note that the proposed amendment wouldn't really apply to the court initially anyway. Assuming that the some challenger with standing is found, and depending on how long it takes to wind its way to the supreme court, it seems easily possible it will apply to no one on the court so the court will only be deciding something affecting future justices, not themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It could include current Court members, in theory. But the precedent would be to exempt current Court members from it, as with Harry Truman when the presidential term-limits amendment was passed. (As it turns out, he didn't run for another term anyway.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Come on, people ... is there some part of “constitutional amendment” that isn’t clear? It’s how the US ... amends the Constitution. Politics are an entirely different thing, but the mechanism is as simple and clear as can be. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Politics totally figures into it. That's how the presidential term limit amendment got passed. Attempts have been made to promote term limits on representatives and senators, but it doesn't go anywhere, as it seems what its proponents want to do is limit the terms of someone else's reps or senators. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe, Jan Hus
Had John Wycliffe even heard of Waldo? Was he influenced by Waldo? Questions added later: What about Jan Hus? The article says Hus was influenced by Wycliffe. Do we know whether Hus had heard of or was influenced by Peter Waldo? Rich (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In the book History of the Waldenses the author writes: "and since the doctrines of Walter Lollard had taken deep root in England, we do not exceed due bounds when we presume that Wycliffe's studies were aided by the principles of the Waldenses" In view of this proactively apologetic formulation, I do not exceed due bounds when I presume that it reflects the author's lack of certainty regarding the presumed influence. It appears very unlikely, though, that people with a similar erudition and background as Wycliffe and Hus would be unaware of these principles, regardless of whether they sympathized with them or considered them heresy. --Lambiam 14:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)