Humanities desk
< December 13	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 15 >

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

December 14

Question about USA presidential impeachment

Let's say that a U.S. president gets impeached and then also convicted (removed). Can he later run for election (re-election) in a subsequent year? In other words, does the "conviction / removal" remove him from office, just for that specific presidential term? Or remove him from the office, forever? And where are the rules, etc., for this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 7: Judgment in cases of impeachment; Punishment on conviction. --142.112.159.101 (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read that. Thanks. So, that means that it can go "either way"? When the Senate convicts, they then have to decide on the correct punishment? And that may -- or may not -- include disqualification from holding further office? Am I reading that correctly? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means that if convicted on impeachment the person in question is removed from office and cannot hold any such office at any later time. Punishment for the crimes themselves is left up to a standard trial in the courts. --Khajidha (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret that to mean they can't hold federal office again, but in theory they could run for a state office. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. --Khajidha (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Impeachment in the United States#Result of conviction: removal, and with an additional Senate vote, disqualification. Removal from office and disqualification from holding future office are separate actions. older ≠ wiser 23:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I later found this article: Trump impeachment FAQ: What you need to know. It says: Question: Could Trump run for president again if he’s removed by the Senate? Answer: That depends. The Constitution says that the Senate can vote for removal and for “disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” In U.S. history, a president has never been removed from office only to seek it again, but federal judges who have been removed have required a second vote to disqualify them from future office. If that precedent were to be applied in the case of Trump’s ouster, the Senate would have one vote to remove him from office and another to disqualify him from future office. If the second vote isn’t held or fails, he could legally be free to run again. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Significant election in Great Britain

Within the past day or two, there was some significant election in Britain. I believe the result was that Boris Johnson won some significant majority vote. And the implications were that "Brexit" would now quickly proceed. Where is the Wikipedia article on this election? I can't seem to find anything. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 United Kingdom general election. MarnetteD|Talk 06:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Said article is currently on the Main Page in the in the news section, although it might not have been posted earlier. All general elections in universally-recognized sovereign states are ITNR, meaning they always get posted as long as the article is up to snuff. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Elections in the United Kingdom#General elections needs an update, because it says that the last time that a parliament lasted for less than the prescribed five years was 2017. Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's the article I was seeking. I was looking under the articles for Boris Johnson and his election victories. But, I did not see this article come up. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 11:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a link at Boris Johnson#2019 general election, or at least there is now (there were a gazillion edits on 13 Dec so hard to see when it actually appeared). Alansplodge (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Religion and young Americans

Seen from Europe, it seems that the US are extremely religious. Is it still the same with the young generation? Or is it like in Europe where most young people are secular or atheist? Ericdec85 (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The proportion of US adults who describe themselves as Christian has fallen to two-thirds, a drop of 12 percentage points over the past decade[1] [2] [3]. However The share of US adults who identify with non-Christian faiths has increased from 5% in 2009 to 7% in 2019. DroneB (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reading the articles Religion in the United States and Religion in Europe, I'm not convinced there is a significant difference even in the general population. There seems to be ~ 20% of people not self-identifying with religion/spirit, not willing to answer the question or not knowing in both regions. The numbers of affiliated/adherents could be influenced by other factors than self-identification. In northern Belgium, about two thirds of youngsters are put in state-sponsored roman catholic schools [4]. It's a complex question, and I find no ready sources for a differentiation by age. Wakari07 (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Younger people are less religious than older ones in many countries, especially in the U.S. and Europe from the Pew Research Center has a chart showing "surveyed % of adults who say that religion is very important in their lives", with the USA showing ages 18-39 as 43% and over 40 as 60%, whereas the figures for Europe are 19% and 26% respectively. Of course, both the USA and Europe are very diverse places; one might expect the results in the US Bible Belt to be much higher in both age groups. Alansplodge (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contrast to 2019 Eurobarometer numbers. Across the EU28, of 27,438 people surveyed aged 15 and over, 70% considered themselves to be Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Sikh/Buddhist/Hindu/other, 30% atheist/non believer or agnostic/refuse to answer/don't know (p.T11-T12). But of course the question was about "extremely religious" people. Wakari07 (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also Religion is still more vibrant in the U.S. than in Europe—but there are striking exceptions to the cliché which says; "In 2016, 78 percent of Americans claimed a religious affiliation to the General Social Survey, compared with just 47 percent in a similar survey in Britain. At the same time, 25 percent of Americans claimed to attend religious services at least once a week; in Britain, only 14 percent did".

As regards younger people, in the USA; "Again according to the General Social Survey, only 31 percent of 18 to 29-year-olds identified as having no religion" (known as "nones"). However in Europe; "The highest share of young adults who said they had no religious affiliation was 91 percent in the Czech Republic, followed by 80 percent in Estonia and 75 percent in Sweden. In Britain, the figure was 70 percent". In only three European countries were there fewer "nones", Lithuania (25 percent), (17 percent) and Israel (1 percent) [not really in Europe though]. Alansplodge (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The figures for the European survey came from this 2018 report. Alansplodge (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You accidentally cut Poland from the 17 percent. Nil Einne (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. Note that both Lithuania and Poland are both solidly Catholic and were countries where the church played a pivotal role in the overthrow of Communism. Alansplodge (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wakari07, yes the US is extremely religious because an atheist President would have absolutely no chance to be elected. Even Donald Trump has to pretend to be a Christian to keep his voters. No developed country has a president or a prime minister who would ever say "god bless you" and nor currency with "god" written on it. People in Europe might believe in religion but they don't go to Church and they really filter the bible. Pretty much anything supra-natural is seen as a legend (like Noah's ark or the creation of Earth in 7 days) while in the US, many people think those are real facts. Ericdec85 (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The USA is not a developed country??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nor the UK apparently (they "cheat" by just using an initialism). They even have a state church, something which the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids! --47.146.63.87 (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see Dei Gratia Regina and Fidei defensatrix which appear on British coins as "D. G. Reg. F. D.". Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A majority of U.S. adults say they would vote for an open atheist for President, incidentally fewer than say they would vote for a socialist. How do you know that Trump "pretend[s] to be a Christian"? How do you distinguish people who say they are Christians, but actually are not, from people who are? And do European Christians mostly believe "pretty much anything supra-natural is…a legend"? They don't accept the Nicene Creed, or the divinity of Jesus? That might be news to the Holy See… --47.146.63.87 (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, mangled my sentence there; that should say "more than say they would vote for a socialist". I started to type "fewer than that say", but then skipped around revising parts of my reply and didn't carefully re-read the whole thing. --47.146.63.87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]