Humanities desk
< August 3	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 4[edit]

What qualifies as a presidential disability and how it affects the presidency[edit]

I'm aware that the 25th amendment allows for the president to be temporarily or permanently relieved of his duties in case of a disability, but what I want to know is what exactly qualifies as disability in such circumstances and by what yardstick is a disability deemed too incapacitating to permit a sitting president to continue to serve? It's indisputable that a president with a brain injury, for example, could not serve as president because his judgment and decision-making skills would be impacted by the nature of such an injury. But what about disabilities that don't impact his cognitive skills, but still severely limit him? Suppose he gets into an accident or has a stroke that paralyses him? Or leaves him blind and/or deaf? Would he still be allowed to serve after being temporarily relieved of his post to undergo rehabilitation? What if it can't be determined if his condition is permanent or temporary? What if the president develops mental illness during his term, but it be can be successfully managed with medication and therapy? It's unclear just what "disabilities" could impede a president from his duty. 74.15.116.62 (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read the amendment, it's whatever the "Vice President, together with a majority of either 'the principal officers of the executive departments' (i.e., the Cabinet) or of 'such other body as Congress may by law provide'" decide it is. (In the case of the Donald, it would be just being himself.) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your little quip about Donald gave me quite a chuckle. But in all seriousness I must ask, could a certified personality disorder (as distinct from a mental illness) count as a disability that disqualifies a president? 74.15.116.62 (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to the question of "what constitutes 'high crimes and misdemeanors'?"

For a recent academic treatment of the subject, see Daniel J.T. Schukerr, Burden of Decision: Judging Presidential Disability Under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, 30 J.L. & Pol. 97 (2014): it's available on SSRN, see here. Neutrality^talk 01:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link to that journal, it was very informative. My apologies for the late reply. 74.15.116.62 (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These parts of the Constitution are deliberately vague in order to allow for unforeseen circumstances. This is in contrast to the definition of treason, for example, which is rather more specific, or at least more narrow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, of course, arises when the president is declared disabled for reasons that he or she asserts are purely political in motivation. My guess is that if the president challenged this in the Supreme Court, they would be very reluctant to intervene, although in an extremely blatant case they would probably do so. Loraof (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Woodrow Wilson#Incapacity, which says

No one close to him, including his wife, his physician, or personal assistant, was willing to take responsibility to certify, as required by the Constitution, his "inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office".[255] Because of this complex case, Congress developed the 25th Amendment to control succession to the presidency in case of illness, which was ratified.[256]

Loraof (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsion of Jews from Spain[edit]

ref desk trolling

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What reasons did queen Isabella have for expelling the Jews from Spain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepers2122 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Alhambra Decree. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also they were lumped in with the Moors as "foreign invaders who weren't Catholic". Of course, the Jewish "invasion" wasn't a military conquest. Still, it was at a time when the Catholics resented and feared foreign influences. StuRat (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, no they weren't. The OP can read the article on the Alhambra decree and other related articles. This isn't the "what pops into StuRat's head" desk. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But making stuff up for the benefit of strangers is FUN! --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So is attacking established editors in front of the OP, apparently. "StuRat is incorrect" would have been sufficient. But not as much fun, eh? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. His answer was bad and he should feel bad. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not feeling as bad as you feel good for attacking him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a long and convoluted story. See History_of_the_Jews_in_Spain#Turning_point_.281212.E2.80.931300.29 - it took a few centuries of rising antisemitism to get to that point. In brief: discrimination and persecution speckled with occasional massacre turned to forced conversion, followed by desire to root out insincere converts (!) followed by expulsion. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Jews ever collaborate with the moors in conquering Spain?Jeepers2122 (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jews in Spain#Moorish Spain (711 to 1492). clpo13_(talk) 18:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So no wonder Queen Isabella had the Jews expelled. Many centuries earlier,they had collaborated with foreign invaders.Jeepers2122 (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As had many Christians, of course. And the "foreign invaders" had collaborated with Christian princes against other Christian principalities. Medieval Iberia is more Game of Thrones than Star Wars. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regnal name of Charles William Ferdinand of Brunswick & the other Charles II.[edit]

In the German Wikipedia, there is currently a discussion going on whether Charles William Ferdinand, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel - I will use the German names Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand rather at random - ever bore the regnal name Karl II. (as the son of Karl I.), or only reigned as Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand, and whether Karl II. Wilhelm Ferdinand and others are legit alternate names.

A closely related question: "Charles II of Brunswick" is a redirect to Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand, which is conflicting with his grandson Charles II, Duke of Brunswick (= Karl II.). But why was this one called Charles II, considering that the Duchy of Brunswick never was ruled by a Karl I.? However, she was the successor state of the Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, which was, in the end, ruled by Karl I. and then Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand - so, was Charles II, Duke of Brunswick named in the tradition of Charles I, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, and can this be regarded as proof that Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand has never been a Karl II., until called so much later?

While I don't think that over here I'd find more users proficient in German aristocracy, probably there are many who are overall proficient in regnal names (the German Wikipedia does not have an article, as of now), and their relation to given names. --KnightMove (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding second question, using the "predecessors" links starting with Charles II, Duke of Brunswick, I rebuilt the following sequence:

Karl, Duke of Brunswick-Lunenburg - #1 in his case seems to belong to the birth date
Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand, Herzog von Braunschweig-Lüneburg und Fürst von Braunschweig- Wolfenbüttel - our article Regnal number explains that unless followed, "firsts" are not numbered, this would apply to the original regnal name of Karl, Duke, above
Friedrich Wilhelm, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg and Oels - same as above
Karl II, Duke of Brunswick

The current "Charles II of Brunswick" might be a wrong redirect. The article for Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand makes some genealogical comment of his relationship with Charles I perhaps a bit fuzzily, which might have led to the confusion. I think in case the sequence of four after Karl above is correct, it could answer also the other question. --Askedonty (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added bullets to make your sequence a bit easier to read. —Tamfang (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's true the framing did not much to add visual comfort. --Askedonty (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question may be still disputed noting the fact that deutsche biographie acknowledges the Karl II, Wilhelm Ferdinand version. I don't know where they placed Karl II (Charles II, Duke of Brunswick), who happens to be also Karl IV von Oels, but also the first duke of the new Duchy of Brunswick. Regarding compound names and regnal numbers so whether Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand should be counted as Karl I did not find an answer in [1]. Historian de:Paul Zimmermann (Historiker) (1854-1933) names Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand as Karl II in [2]. The site welfen.de (House of Welf I think) does not follow and has the younger first duke of Brunswick for owner of the Karl II regnal name [3].--Askedonty (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wrong, it's Karl Friedrich August Wilhelm, in other words Charles II, Duke of Brunswick that historian de:Paul Zimmermann (Historiker) names as Karl II in [4]. It seems deutsche biographie is not consistent in the front page in naming Karl II, Wilhelm Ferdinand ( Follow their Biografische Lexika/Biogramme * Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (ADB) [1875-1912] Autor/in: Zimmermann, Paul (1882), link. There Paul Zimmermann's Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand biography: "Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand, Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg, ältester Sohn des Herzogs Karl (..)", etc. ) --Askedonty (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The full answer could be that the Braunschweig-Lüneburg did not find a need for regnal numbers and that compound names were considered a sufficient answer for not needing to introducing them. With the refundation of the duchy it might have been considered usefull to mark the dynastic continuity however and the numeral attributed in consequence. Later the gap in the numeral sequence may have introduced the question of a logical Karl II, Wilhelm Ferdinand, giving rise to some popular alternative naming and a possible introduction of it in more modern historic accounts. That could also be what deutsche biographie is respecting. As all this is highly speculative, do not take it too much in consideration, thank you. --Askedonty (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those were very heklpful hints anyway, thank you. --KnightMove (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]