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.
Given the limitations of US cities' and counties' jurisdiction over the military, does anything (other than its concern for civilian morale, and the threat of civil disobedience) compel the Pentagon not to transport nuclear weapons through those cities and counties, such as Berkeley, CA, that have declared themselves "Nuclear-Free Zones"? NeonMerlin 06:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent, excellent question! It's actually a huge problem because nuclear energy (which is the main idea behind nuclear free zones, rather than the whole transportation of nuclear weapons) is within the sole purview of the federal government—state and local authority is completely preempted when it comes to nuclear power. I'm certain the same thing would apply to military actions like troop movements. The literature indicates that there's some debate—there may be ways to legally forbid nuclear power and weapons in a local area, but you have to work hard to get around preemption.
Here are some research references you may find interesting:
Borchers, Patrick J.; Dauer, Paul F. (November 1988). "Taming the New Breed of Nuclear Free Zone Ordinances: Statutory and Constitutional Infirmities in Local Procurement Ordinances Blacklisting the Producers of Nuclear Weapons Components". Hastings Law Journal. 40: 87.
Martin, Lori A. (1988). "The Legality of Nuclear Free Zones". University of Chicago Law Review. 55: 965.
Babcock, Hope (2012). "Can Vermont Put the Nuclear Genie Back in the Bottle?: A Test of Congressional Preemptive Power". Ecology Law Quarterly. 39: 691.
United States v. Oakland, 958 F.2d 300 (9th Cir. 1992).
Li, Luis (1991). "State Sovereignty and Nuclear Free Zones". California Law Review. 79: 1169.
Otruba, Teresa A. (1988). "Local Nuclear-Free Zone Legislation: Force of Law or Expressions of Political Sentiment?". U.S.F. Law Review. 22: 561.
There are a bunch more, but that should at least get you started. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a municipality like Berkeley has declared itself a "nuclear-free zone" is a meaningless political stunt. Ignoring the fact that all of California (including Berkeley) is on the same electrical grid, meaning that a portion of the electricity that Berkeley uses is generated by nuclear power plants, the city itself absolutely benefits from nuclear technology. It's hospitals use nuclear medicine to treat cancer, researchers from the University of California, Berkeley do research at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, both nearby (but outside the city limits of) Berkeley. It's the declaration of politicians and people uneducated in the matter involved which sounds good, like they are taking a stance against nuclear weapons and nuclear power. It's sounds much more dramatic than just saying "I think the production of nuclear weapons is irresponsible and I have questions about the safety of nuclear power plants", but it is at once both meaningless and unenforceable. --Jayron32 15:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's about as meaningless as Ghandi not buying British, or Rosa Parks not going to the back of the bus. In other words, it has little direct effect, but it is a political statement that may contribute to a shift in mindset. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Ghandi and Ms. Parks were standing up against clear human evil, whereas the use of nuclear technology is not clear-cut evil, despite what people who use such claims as a ploy to win election would have you believe. --Jayron32 00:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really affect my point. If they are morally right or wrong - what they do is not meaningless. But I'll bite - I have a hard time imagining a scenario in which the stockpiling of about 70000 nuclear warheads - at a time where polio, mass starvation, and environmental degradation are open problems - to be considered anything but a moral failing of the species. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that our article suggests the legislation involved in these zones often goes beyond declarations anyway. They sometimes/often involve bans or limits on the city working with those involved in nuclear weapons and possibly nuclear power, as well as bans on nuclear waste. Of course, singluar bans aren't likely to do much in themself, but the more that get involved, the more likely these are going to have an effect. In fact, in one case (Oakland) the nuclear free zone was invalidated by a federal court, which while supporting the idea their power is limited, also suggests they aren't simply meaningless. Clearly someone was concerned enough by the possible effects (such as the use of ports) to challenge the ban which ultimately proved that the city didn't have that power (at least based on then current court intepretations) which doesn't change the fact that the city did attempt to do something.
I would also note the meaning behind nuclear free zones can be complicated and vary. In one of the more famous international cases of New Zealand, as the earlier article and New Zealand's nuclear-free zone say, there's no ban on land based power plants or most forms of research or other land based activities besides anything to do with nuclear explosive devices. The legislation involved only bans ships using nuclear propulsion and ships carrying nuclear weapons in NZ's territorial waters (the later isn't properly mentioned in our article but see [1]), NZers direct involvement in nuclear explosive devices, dumping of nuclear waste in NZ's waters (the legislation involved was replaced, see [2] and the next section for the current version). While there is sometimes controversially, fairly strong opposition to (land based) nuclear power, and even some forms of research, it's not actually banned and the strongest opposition tends to be towards nuclear weapons and the risks from the careless use of nuclear power or disposal of nuclear waste. Speaking more generally, AFAIK only a few extremists internationally are against all forms of nuclear medicine. (And may be there's something odd in the US, but AFAIK as with StS and NZ, the biggest concern tends to be nuclear weapons not power. It may be that the ability of the city to have any influence on nuclear weapons is even more limited than power, but I would be surprised if nuclear power was really their biggest concern.)
Ultimately whatever you may think of them the fact that the meaning of such bans or ideas are varied doesn't mean the ideas are inherently wrong or useless, just as the very large number of things which use a simplified slogan to explain a complicated set of political beliefs. Dismissal of differing political ideas and concerns and attempts to change matters in whatever manner a person feels they are able to, as "political stunts" and "uneducated", regardless of how you personally feel about them doesn't help discussion in any way, and if anything explains why such slogans are common and discussion so constrained. I would add that I personally am much more nuclear friendly, than probably a substanial majority of New Zealanders. I still find such dismissals unwarranted and unhelpful. This is not to suggest that there are no politicians who use them as political stunts or that the simplistic political appeal of such slogans aren't one if their draw cards or that there aren't plenty of people supporting such ideas who have no real idea of what they're supporting and why (although there are plenty of people opposed or who support nuclear whatever likewise). Simply that it's likely more complicated than that for many of them, as well as many supporters, and so they may have a genuine desire to bring about change based on a genuinely held rational set of beliefs, and may see such methods as the best way they are able to do so, and that there are real reasons why it's sometimes helpful not to overly complicate matters (don't my posts prove that?)
What doesn't move political discussions forward in meaningful ways is speaking in inaccurate platitudes. If a political group said "We have some concerns about the safety of nuclear power plants, we should talk about this before we move forward" or "We don't feel like the proliferation of nuclear weapons has been a good idea" then we have a way to get something done. If, instead, we just shout slogans at each other, or pass ordinances that don't have any power, nothing useful happens. --Jayron32 13:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this is generally correct. It's a generally unfortunate fact about local politics. They can do a lot of good things... but those aren't headline-grabbing for the most part. By the way, some useful sources for studying local law generally (we covered all these in a local government law course last year):
Briffault, Richard (March 1990). "Our Localism: Part II—Localism and Legal Theory". Columbia Law Review. 90 (2): 346–454. doi:10.2307/1122776.
Ford, Richard Thompson (May 1996). "Beyond Borders: A Partial Response to Richard Briffault". Stanford Law Review. 48 (5): 1173–1195. doi:10.2307/1229383.
My professor was also a major proponent of the thinking announced in Quadragesimo Anno, though I'm not sure how much weight it's given in practice. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron's comments square with what the Nuclear-free zone article implies. The university itself, which probably originated the notion, is itself not subject to that ordinance, because it's state-owned. Typically, state governments can override what local governments decided to do. That's why I asked if this ordinance had ever been tested. I very much doubt it. And if the city made itself an obstacle, the state legislature could decide to nullify it. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Typically but not always. As our Local government in the United States#Dillon's Rule article says, although the power is much more limited (since it has to be explicitly granted rather than anything which isn't explicitly granted) compared to the separation between state and federal government and also AFAIK no state in the US operates under a federal structure, there are local governments in the US with rights guaranteed under their respective state constitutions, which means they and these powers can only be changed by state constitutional amendments. State constitutional amendments are sometimes/often? easier to implement than federal constitutional amendments in the US (e.g. Constitution of California), but I don't know how this correlates to states that have local government guarantees in their constitutions. This contrasts to some places like the UK and NZ where parliamentary sovereignty means that any local governments are indeed ultimately only operating under the will of parliament and can be changed or find their actions nullified at any time (at least technically edit: or theoretically). Of course this doesn't help the local government if what they are doing is not allowed by the state or federal constitution. Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good old Dillon's Rule. Scholars hate it, but it's still in use in a lot of places. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So the OP's question has at least 50 answers, as every state does things the way they want to. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the go-to answer to any question they teach you the first day in law school: "It depends." —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After being injured in the war, he made his way to Kenya where his sister Florence had married the prominent settler Lord Delamere. Cole first tried farming in the area beyond Thomson's Falls in 1905, but he eventually moved to the Lake Elementaita area where his wealthy brother-in-law gave him 30,000 acres (120 km2).
I hope that's what you're asking about. --Antiquary (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that that article offers no authority for any of those facts, so I'd better add this reference to Elspeth Huxley's book Out in the Midday Sun, where it's said to have been "50,000 acres, later exchanged for 30,000 acres". --Antiquary (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ballet costume"Arm puffs" seems to be the official term. See, for example, this site. The attached image (from our Tutu article) shows Alexandra Ansanelli wearing them. Tevildo (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How does one become an Officer of Arms? Is there anything like a Heraldry School or apprenticeship? Or does one need to be an autodidact? All help will be appreciated.--The Theosophist (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See College of Arms#Qualifications. A herald "ought to be a Gentlemen and an Old man not admitting into that sacred office everie glasier, painter & tricker, or a meere blazonner of Armes:" or, today, a well-established member of the legal or historical establishment. This is the current list of members - their various postnominals may be instructive. Tevildo (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, does this mean that there is not a place where someone can learn Heraldry, especially blazon?--The Theosophist (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are various heraldry societies which offer educational courses on the subject, but none (as far as I know) that lead to an actual paper qualification. It hasn't been a marketable skill (rather than a (doubtless very interesting) hobby) for at least 500 years, after all. Tevildo (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you read to the bottom of the web page to which Tevildo linked, you will see that the skills involved are indeed marketable. The demand for having arms suitably designed and correctly applied for has never been greater than today. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195 - former member of the Heraldry Society of St Andrews} 90.200.134.192 (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I am indeed interested (for now, anyway). Hadn't realized there was even an institution for this sort of thing. Figured someone just looked up the arms in a book and traced them when needed. And figured the people carrying the banners were just regular soldiers. Thanks for the enlightenment, Theosophist! InedibleHulk(talk) 11:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did any blacks living during Apartheid actually support this policy? And what did PW Botha and FW De Klerk personally think of South African blacks? --Teaxodarty (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The various Bantustan or "homeland" leaders were somewhat co-opted... AnonMoos (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For your second question, it's worth reading this interview with the man from the Apartheid regime who arranged for (and argued for) Botha's first meeting with Mandela. At the time, people in the regime generally still saw Mandela as a terrorist, but they also saw him as a way out (probably the only way out) of a situation that was becoming impossible for them. And they had, or developed, very considerable respect for him (otherwise negotatiations like these can't work) and, eventually, trust for him. Key quotes from that interview, "Mr. Mandela was almost unconditionally trusted" (although, "what about his colleagues") - "the first time I met him, I already saw him as president" - "I wanted them to understand that this man is highly respected by us". The interview also suggests that Botha got on well with Mandela, whereas the tensions of the situation meant that de Klerk got on less well with him.
Later addition - I seem to have misread your question slightly, so addressing your question slightly more directly, it's noticeable that the interviewee's mixed feelings about Mandela were based on Mandela being a prisoner held for security reasons, not based on him being black. With various caveats, one could imagine that extended to Botha and de Klerk and their views of other black people too. Botha was far more worried about communists than he was about black people (again mentioned in the interview).
On your first question, I can't think of any (I assume there were a few). An interesting opposite case, and relevant to Botha's concerns I just mentioned, is Joe Slovo, the leader of the South African communist party, who was often the one white guy visible in pictures of ANC meetings. One can presume Botha would much rather deal with a black guy from the ANC than a white guy from the communist party. Much as ancient Greek and Roman heroes often became celestial bodies after dying, Joe Slovo became a town, as depicted in this video by the Wikimedia Foundation. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
