Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 May 16

= May 16 =

Oregon congressional candidate
I saw a spot on YouTube about a congressional candidate that supports the green new deal and talked of homeless teens sleeping in the forest and also supporting LGBT community. It was a White lady. She was bisexual. I don't think its Jamie Skinner either. So what is her name? I want to find out more about here. Any help? That's all I remember. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9758:7D90:2071:B3CD:859F:7A7E (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Tina Kotek is running for Governor of Oregon. Perhaps her?  There's also the current governor, Kate Brown, who is married to a man but is openly bisexual.  If not one of them, this seems to be a list of Oregon congressional candidates.  -- Jayron 32 12:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It twas a congressional candidate that talked about homeless single Mom’s having to leave their boys sleep in the woods and Vice versa for dads.2600:1700:9758:7D90:D19A:6088:56EB:70C7 (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Painting depicting men and women in traditional Ukraine dress outside a building perhaps in Kiev.
Just before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Wikipedia had an article on 'Moscow vs Kiev'. This was responding to "Which came first". You had several pictures, paintings, depicting founders and such. One painting showed men and women in very special traditional dress gathered outside a building. The depiction of some of the women was dramatic with one wearing white headdress and flowing white dress with minimal embroidery. The wide ties of her 'bonnet' draped down the front of her gown. She almost glowed. When I went back to look again some days later the image was gone! I checked my search history to no avail. I have spent hours entering every possible combination of search criteria. I can only conclude that you removed the picture for some reason when the Russian invasion occurred. Was the image withdrawn by request or demand? I did not copy the picture when I first saw it so cannot show you what I am talking about. If you have it in your archives, please let me at least look at it again if you can't let me copy it. I am most interested in seeing again that woman in the special traditional dress. Of course I would like to know why the picture was removed. For some reason I think I remember the painting being about dedication of the first church in a city, such as Kiev or Moscow. (But the scene was outside in front of a building.) Thank you for any light you can shine on this frustrating mystery. Learner37 (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't often look at the deletion log, but if I'm using it right, it says we've never deleted any article containing "Moscow" in the title. What was the actual title of the article? What style (and time period) was the painting in? For instance there are a lot of glowy ladies in pre-raphaelite art, so should we be searching late 19th century paintings? Card Zero  (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Kirillov_knyaginya_olga.jpg possibility from the category Ukrainian_history_paintings is File:Kirillov_knyaginya_olga.jpg 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts to help me.
 * The painting you posted for me is closer than anything I've come across in my search but is a mile off the painting I saw. I think the article title may have been History of Ukraine but I had looked at several sites having to do with Kiev and Moscow history.
 * I'm not sure of the painting date but it commemorated the opening/founding of a church and seemed to be outside a modest stone? building. They were perhaps in the street in front of the building.  It was depicting a very early historical event so people were wearing early traditional clothing.  The woman was in almost totally white flowing gown and she wore a headpiece/bonnet that was voluminous white with wide ribbons that hung down the front of her gown.  There was delicate embroidery down the front but I don't remember clearly how it was arranged.  I'm not sure of the significance of her being dressed the way she was in nearly all white.  (Was she an important wife or was she a saintly person?)
 * The painting had a watercolor look to it but could very well have been an oil painting. Learner37 (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah well, it was always a long shot. I’m sorry we didn’t find it. And we don’t even know if the image you saw is still on Wikipedia. If you couldn’t see it in the Ukrainian history paintings category I linked above, you might look through some of these others if you haven’t already (be sure to check the subcategories at the top of the each page as well): Category:Olga_of_Kiev, Category:Royalty_of_Ukraine, Category:Nobility_of_Ukraine, Category:People_of_Kievan_Rus, Category:Historical_images_of_buildings_in_Kyiv. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah well, it was always a long shot. I’m sorry we didn’t find it. And we don’t even know if the image you saw is still on Wikipedia. If you couldn’t see it in the Ukrainian history paintings category I linked above, you might look through some of these others if you haven’t already (be sure to check the subcategories at the top of the each page as well): Category:Olga_of_Kiev, Category:Royalty_of_Ukraine, Category:Nobility_of_Ukraine, Category:People_of_Kievan_Rus, Category:Historical_images_of_buildings_in_Kyiv. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Political parties in the Republic of Ireland
Are there any political parties in the Republic of Ireland who do not advocate for a united Ireland, and believe that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom? Politics of the Republic of Ireland has nothing to say on the matter. Many thanks, --Viennese Waltz 12:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion in this Quora thread, from which the conclusion is...  no, though "there are a very small number of relatively unknown advocacy groups and some individuals based in the ROI that support a closer relationship between Ireland and the UK."  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This BBC article, The unionists left behind in the new Irish state, has a quote from an author on the subject:
 * "I think the Troubles tended to make Protestants in the south more nationalist rather than less... They didn't want to be associated with anti-Catholic discrimination... And they were horrified by the terrorism carried out by Protestants, as well as obviously the IRA".
 * Alansplodge (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Advocate is a relative term here too... It implies an active effort to make something happen; different political parties deal with the question of Northern Ireland differently. Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin and Fine Gael all have different levels of advocacy on the Northern Ireland issue, they all broadly think it should happen.  Per United Ireland, "Within the Oireachtas, there has traditionally been broad support for a united Ireland, with differences over the twentieth century on how it would be achieved".  It's not that such parties don't generally believe that there should be a United Ireland, but in how strongly they actively work towards it.  According to that article, only the relatively minor Solidarity party opposes unification with Northern Ireland, but that's because it seeks a sort of pan-European socialist state, and sees the Northern Irish reunification as a distraction from its goals.  Solidarity represents a sort of "Rule 34" of politics: If you can think of it, there exists some party that has it as a political position.  They are not major players in the Irish political landscape, however, they've never had more than a single TD at any one time, and I think (depending on how you understand the Irish Socialist Party (Ireland), which is a complicated melange of disunited socialist groups), only ever 3-4 TDs ever.  However, broadly speaking, any anti-reunification sentiment is non-existent in the Irish political sphere, but it runs the spectrum between "Kinda believing it's a good idea eventually, but we have more important things to deal with now" to "Let's blow shit up and make this happen today".  -- Jayron 32 12:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

US Constitution
Is it correct to state that there are exactly 2 things (slavery and treason) that any ordinary citizen can do to violate the US Constitution?

Duomillia (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you read the Constitution? --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you expecting our questioners to be expert interpreters of the Constitution? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  05:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be an expert to have actually read it. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So what? Reading a text, and understanding all the finer legal points inherent in it (which is a moveable feast, as adjudged by whoever happens to be sitting on the Supreme Court at a particular point in time; for ex. the current abortion debate) - are two different things. What is it you're wanting our OP to do, and why aren't you willing to leave the question alone if you can't contribute a reference they might find useful in answering their question? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As Jayron notes below, the OP's premise is essentially false. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The OP didn't have a premise. They asked whether something was the case or not. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The OP's premise is that "there are exactly 2 things (slavery and treason) that any ordinary citizen can do to violate the US Constitution." --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Tragic. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, you'll get over it. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I see what you're getting at but I don't think it can be stated that precisely. The Constitution really doesn't create any obligations binding directly on individuals other than officers of the United States.  In some cases it requires that such obligations be enacted.
 * For example the Thirteenth Amendment bans slavery, but does not in itself create an offense of slaveholding. The Treason Clause is a limitative definition of treason &mdash; it says that Congress shall have the power to fix how treason shall be punished, but not in excess of the definition given (the actual law against treason is 18 U.S. Code § 2381, not Article Three).
 * Similar remarks apply to the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees criminal defendants "compulsory process" requiring witnesses to testify for them, but does not in itself impose that requirement on the witnesses. --Trovatore (talk) 05:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Constitution doesn't really contain laws that bind citizens, it contains a framework for organizing a government; it grants powers to bodies to create and enforce laws and regulations (secondary legislation) to entities, but itself doesn't really create a whole lot of laws. WRT slavery, the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution abolishes the practice of slavery, but that doesn't bind individuals.  Like, I can't enslave somebody, but normal laws prevent that: they prevent me from kidnapping someone and holding them against their will.  That's normal laws that exist outside the constitution.  The Constitution functionally makes slavery equal to kidnapping (and the like) but it doesn't set forth any punishment for kidnapping someone; that's still left to normal law-making processes.  Similarly, Article Three of the United States Constitution merely defines treason as a concept; it doesn't establish any punishment for it; normal laws do that.  The closest thing that came to an actual law that the Constitution had was the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but that was repealed later.  Even that only directed or authorized Congress to pass an actual law to deal with prohibition.  The Amendment itself required the Volstead Act, an honest-to-God law, to create a mechanism for prohibiting alcohol.  Without the Volstead Act, the Amendment only had the functional effect of authorizing Congress and the States to pass laws to prohibit alcohol.  As noted, "The Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibited the production, sale, and transport of "intoxicating liquors," but it did not define "intoxicating liquors" or provide penalties."  Without penalties, a law is toothless, and without strict definitions, its scope is unknown.  The Constitution doesn't contain laws that regulate people, it contains a framework for organizing a government and outlines the scope of how that government can do its job.  -- Jayron 32 12:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Constitution doesn't really contain laws that bind citizens, it contains a framework for organizing a government; it grants powers to bodies to create and enforce laws and regulations (secondary legislation) to entities, but itself doesn't really create a whole lot of laws. WRT slavery, the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution abolishes the practice of slavery, but that doesn't bind individuals.  Like, I can't enslave somebody, but normal laws prevent that: they prevent me from kidnapping someone and holding them against their will.  That's normal laws that exist outside the constitution.  The Constitution functionally makes slavery equal to kidnapping (and the like) but it doesn't set forth any punishment for kidnapping someone; that's still left to normal law-making processes.  Similarly, Article Three of the United States Constitution merely defines treason as a concept; it doesn't establish any punishment for it; normal laws do that.  The closest thing that came to an actual law that the Constitution had was the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but that was repealed later.  Even that only directed or authorized Congress to pass an actual law to deal with prohibition.  The Amendment itself required the Volstead Act, an honest-to-God law, to create a mechanism for prohibiting alcohol.  Without the Volstead Act, the Amendment only had the functional effect of authorizing Congress and the States to pass laws to prohibit alcohol.  As noted, "The Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibited the production, sale, and transport of "intoxicating liquors," but it did not define "intoxicating liquors" or provide penalties."  Without penalties, a law is toothless, and without strict definitions, its scope is unknown.  The Constitution doesn't contain laws that regulate people, it contains a framework for organizing a government and outlines the scope of how that government can do its job.  -- Jayron 32 12:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

A constitution is a statement of principles establishing the basis of an organization, such as a nation. As such, it is not a penal or civil code, and so would not be expected to specify criminal actions. Rather, it commonly will provide for the mechanisms by which penal / civil laws may be established, limitations on actions defined, and judgment and punishment determined. DOR (HK) (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)