Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2023 September 11

= September 11 =

Tariffs on transshipment
I was thinking about how:

Fact 1. US has a huge inter-modal network that does a good deal of transshipment, that is to say transports goods from country A to country B, or country A to country A (Canada, for example), without the goods entering the US economy.

Fact 2. US may have tariffs on goods from country A.

Question 1: Are transshipment goods subject to US tariffs? I'm 99% sure that the answer is no, but my google-fu is weak and I can't find a WP:RS that verifies it.

Also consider the fact that you can quickly transit though major airports such as HKG, SIN, ICN, because you don't have to pass through immigration, regardless of your citizenship status. But this is not possible in ANY major US airport, because some nationalities are legally required to pass though US immigration, even if they are just transiting though.

US is the world's biggest economy with arguably the most complex legal system. As a result sometimes in matter of immigration and taxation, the obvious answer, the one that applies to 99% of the countries, might not be correct when it comes to the US.

Question 2: (This is the more interesting question. I'm not from the US and simply used US as an easy example. Fact 1 and Fact 2 also applies to almost every major country in the world.) Supposed goods G, originating from country A, is transshipped through country B, onto country C. Are there any cases in the world where this shipment is subject to country B tariffs, for some value of GABC?

I highly suspect the answer is yes, simply due to the vast possible combinations of GABC, and the vast number of different legal systems in the world.

For example, gasoline is heavily subsidized in Venezuela, to the point that it is nearly free. If country B borders such a dumping country, enacting a law that tariffs all fuel originating or has passed-through the dumping country would be a logical, albeit extreme move. Satoshit1 (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Transshipment is the movement of goods into, and out of, a customs area without those goods leaving a bonded area (typically, a bonded warehouse), other than to enter or exit the customs area. If the goods were to come out of the bonded area, into “the economy,” they would be subject to tax (tariff, duty). That would defeat the entire purpose of transshipment. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, what you are saying is definitely correct, and I agree with you. But I am looking for a WP:RS to verify it, specifically for the case of US. Satoshit1 (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Foreign-trade zones of the United States:
 * There are over 230 foreign-trade zone projects and nearly 400 subzones in the United States.
 * --Error (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

ships to Kootenay River
Hi. The Kootenay River empties into the Pacific Ocean. There are a number of dams between the river and the ocean, List of dams in the Columbia River watershed, such that I don't think a ship can travel from the Pacific Ocean to the Kootenay River. (I don't know whether this is true or not. It's just a guess.)

How far can a ship travel upstream from the Columbia River towards the Kootenay River, before it is stopped by a dam?

List of dams in the Columbia River watershed has the list of dams, but unfortunately I don't have the technical knowledge to judge which one is "passable" or not. I know ships have to use canals in order to "pass" a dam. The word "canal" appears 9 times in the Grand Coulee Dam article, and by briefly scanning the article, I can't tell whether it's "passable" or not.

I am specifically interested in the Kootenay River, but a general answer world-wide would be even better. If there's some sort of map about "river travelability", that would be great.

So far, I only found this map, but I don't think that map includes rivers, because it's showing nothing for the mississippi river. Satoshit1 (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * This page on the Voice of America web site says that large ocean-going ships can only travel upriver as far as Vancouver, Washington, while smaller ships can go about 300 km from the Pacific, and small boats about 220 km farther. None of these distances along the river would reach the Canadian border, let alone the Kootenay River.  This page on the Port of Klickitat web site describes the "Mid-Columbia" section of the river as extending as far inland as Pasco, Washington, but doesn't say what is capable of navigating that section. --142.112.221.184 (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The locks on the lower Columbia dams Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day, and McNary are about 86 by 650 feet for the barge traffic. The controlling depth is i think 14 feet. Priest Rapids Dam would be the first without a lock system, but Hanford Reach above the confluence of the Snake would not be navigable for a "ship". The largest ocean going vessel i could find reference to is American Empress. fiveby(zero) 03:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The river was navigated by some fair-sized paddle steamers in the late 19th century; see Steamboats of the upper Columbia and Kootenay Rivers. Alansplodge (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Scanning that article, there seems to be a subtext of 'this is a closed system'. All the steamboats are locally built, not navigated in. -- Verbarson talkedits 13:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, from the Geographic factors of that article:
 * The Big Bend, in its natural state before the construction of the Revelstoke and Mica dams, included a series of rapids which made it impassable to steam navigation proceeding upriver from the Arrow Lakes.
 * Alansplodge (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, everyone! Satoshit1 (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Ineligible candidates for presidency of the United States
What actually is the procedure to determine if a candidate is eligible to become president, and to stop an ineligible candidate running or being elected? Question prompted by current arguments about Trump's eligibility, but it could apply more generally. There are various reasons someone can be ineligible: insurrection and oath-breaking (as Trump is accused of), not being a natural-born citizen (as Trump accused Obama), being underage, having already been elected twice, etc. I see from United_States_presidential_eligibility_legislation that several states introduced or attempted to introduce legislation specially due to the allegations against Obama (some of which could also be relevant for underage candidates). But I can't see any general rules or procedures to ensure eligibility or to disbar ineligible candidates. So what is supposed to happen if e.g. a previously-elected president tries to run for a third time, or someone who has been out of the country too long, or an 18yo, etc? Is it the job of the Supreme Court to disbar them? Or the individual states? Or the Electoral College? Or are the voters just expected to know that they are not eligible and so not vote for them? Iapetus (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Or even both president and VP being from the same state. If someone who's clearly constitutionally ineligible were to somehow won the majority of electoral votes, it would present a constitutional crisis, and likely the Supreme Court would have to step in once all other legal remedies (such as lawsuits) have failed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a full answer, but you have to remember that there isn't one national presidential election in the U.S., but 50 + 1 discrete elections at the state level (+1 is the District of Columbia). States are responsible for their own presidential ballots and have different requirements for getting one's name on the ballot. As a result, the names of candidates on the ballot can differ from state to state, especially when it comes to minor third-party candidates who may not have the capacity to qualify on every state ballot. So any question about a candidate's eligibility would first need to be sorted out at the state level, which is where the first lawsuits questioning Donald Trump's eligibility have been filed. But that doesn't mean it ends here and Bugs is right to say the Supreme Court will likely need to make a final determination. Xuxl (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The simple answer is "It hasn't happened yet, so we don't know what would happen". There's at least a partial discussion of this at Natural-born-citizen clause (United States), which states "The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and by some lower courts that have addressed eligibility challenges, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen."  -- Jayron 32 14:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Likely, any challenge to eligibility would occur during the party nomination process. If not, it would be up to the voters to recognize the ineligibility and not vote for that person.
 * In the highly unlikely event that someone who was ineligible does manage to get both nominated AND elected… Congress can impeach him/her, at which point the person elected Vice President becomes the new President. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In past cases where there has been some genuine question as to eligibility, there has been a clear consensus to resolve it. For example, there was a 2008 senate resolution affirming the eligibility of John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone. The resolution was submitted by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, among a few others. That's not binding in itself, but it has been enough to settle the issue. If there were a genuine question that couldn't be resolved by consensus, the result (as Bugs said) would be a constitutional crisis, and nobody can really know how it would end. --Amble (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
 * Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
 * Section 3 does not specify how it is to be invoked, but Section 5 says Congress has enforcement power. Accordingly, Congress enforced Section 3 by enacting the Enforcement Act of 1870, the pertinent portion of which was repealed in 1948; there is still a current federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) that was initially part of the Confiscation Act of 1862 (and revised in 1948), disqualifying insurrectionists from federal office.[194] Moreover, each house of Congress can expel or exclude members for insurrection or other reasons, although it is uncertain whether more votes may be required to expel than to exclude.[195][196][197] A further way that Congress can enforce Section 3 is via impeachment, and even prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment Congress impeached and disqualified federal judge West Humphreys for insurrection.[198]
 * In August 2023, two prominent conservative legal scholars who are active members of the Federalist Society wrote in a research paper that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump from being president as a consequence of his actions involving attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election.[210][211] Conservative legal scholar J. Michael Luttig and liberal legal scholar Laurence Tribe soon concurred in an article they co-wrote, arguing Section 3 protections are automatic and "self-executing", independent of congressional action.[212] Luttig explained the reasoning during television appearances.[213] A court may be required to make a final determination that Trump was disqualified under Section 3, according to some legal scholars.[192][213][214] Some secretaries of state, who oversee elections in states, soon began preparing for potential challenges relating to whether Trump might be excluded from November 2024 ballots.[215][216]
 * On August 24, 2023, Lawrence Caplan, a tax attorney in Palm Beach County, Florida, filed a challenge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida to disqualify Trump from the 2024 General Election, citing the 14th Amendment.[217][218] One week later on September 1, United States District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg dismissed the case for lack of standing.[219]
 * In Roger Senserrich's comments (in Spanish) any secretary of state can block Trump. This will guarantee a lot of publicity and death threats for the secretary. Trump could sue against the block and reach the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court could entertain the arguments by Baude and Paulsen or they could interpret "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" in a way that saves Trump.
 * --Error (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether "insurrectionists" are or are not disqualified from holding office. The question is "is Donald Trump an insurrectionist", a matter which would need to be decided by the courts.  What needs to happen is that courts have to decide what qualifies a person as an insurrectionist, and whether or not actual actions taken by an actual person themselves meet that definition.  That has not happened yet.  -- Jayron 32 12:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Aside from the preliminary steps of indictments and bookings, nothing has happened to Trump yet. And any state that decides he's an insurrectionist will promptly be sued by Trump's team, and potentially go all the way to the Supreme Court. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not "The question", but one answer to the question being argued. Blackman and Tillman just posted a draft response paper to Baude and Paulsen here. fiveby(zero) 14:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note before this conversation gets out of hand… Wikipedia is NOT the place to debate whether Trump engaged in insurrection or not. This is a sanctioned topic. Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Who engaged in such a debate? -- Jayron 32 17:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Sanctioned" is an auto-antonym. Are you barracking the tabling of the topic? --Error (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Corporation lawsuits II questions.
This is a long shot, but does anyone know of any 2 companies suing each other, but they both ended up being bought by another company. So they would therefore dismiss the lawsuit. Heh. 170.76.231.162 (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC).
 * Not really answering, but that reminds me of the ghetto benches in the universities of Poland during the 1930s. Jewish students were subject to a numerus clausus. Anti-Semites, Jews and other members of the universities disputed among themselves. It all ended when the German invasion suppressed higher education for non-Germans. --Error (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)