Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 January 15

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

January 15

Mail Without Postage

If a piece of mail is sent without proper postage, it is typically returned to the return address listed on the outside of the envelope/package, yes? If that's the case, what's to stop me from skipping the stamp and just writing my intended address as the return address? Voila, free postage. I can't imagine that this would actually work, but I can't figure out why not. Obviously, if the mailman came everyday to find a stack of letters without stamps, he'd soon figure out my scheme, but that just means I'd have to drop them in a public mailbox somewhere. Or maybe packages without postage don't get returned to the sender. But if that's the case, what happens to them? 98.228.74.177 (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If you place enough stamps for say air mail on a package from the U.S. to U.k. and just place it straight in the post box without having to go inside the post office and have it checked to see that it has enough postage.It will arrive in the U.K. not franked,so then you can pull off the stamps and use again on a new packet.You can effectively use the same stamps over and over again until it might just get franked,by that time,you have used the same stamps a dozen times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Just so that we have all of the parameters, what would you propose for the "address" of such mail? hydnjo talk 01:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Depending on the country in which you live the following may happen - If you are in Town A and address a letter to Town B with a return to sender address in Town C, as soon as the item of mail hits the sorting office in Town A it is scanned and checked for correct postage and the stamps (if any) are marked/franked as used. If the machine detects that the letter does not have the correct postage it will mark it as such and send it for returning to sender. It is very unlikely it will ever reach Town B. When the return to sender address is being checked, the post person will go 'hang on, the frank on the stamp says this letter first entered the postal system in this town, how can the return address be another town? For this letter to have got from Town C to Town A when it's addressed to Town B isn't a very likely occurrence, and hey, it doesn't have enough postage anyway so should have been rejected in Town C when it entered the mail system, I'm confused, oh well, I'll just throw it in the dead letter bin. Nanonic (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In the UK, the postman would knock on your front door with your letter in hand (stamped "excess postage due") and ask if you wanted to pay the excess postage to take delivery of the mail - you pay up or he'd take it away and destroy it. It happened EVERY year with a particular aunt's Xmas card. That was a while back though things may have changed. SteveBaker (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

These days, the postman (or woman) leaves a card stating excess postage is due. The postman cannot take cash from customers so there is an option to stick stamps on the card, or you can go to the post office to pay the fee. In the case of franked mail, and insufficient postage, the excess is charged to the account of the person or company that sent the item. -=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 11:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If the postman can't take cash - how are COD (Cash-on-Delivery) transactions handled? Perhaps they aren't handled anymore? It was certainly a curious system where the post office acted (in effect) as an escrow service. SteveBaker (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

COD would be handled by a courier, not Royal Mail. --Tango (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There may be a few legitimate cases when the return address isn't where the mail was sent from. For example if you're holiday in town A for a short time your still going to write your sender address as in your home town. In any cae I seem to recall hearing that this happened sometimes in NZ primarily with Asian (or was it Chinese?) students although I don't know how common it was/is. It could have just been a few incidents which someone took hold of because of the 'evil foreign students' angle Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The post office has obviously considered this. A USPS rule proposal from the 1990s notes that " As is currently the case with mail bearing no postage, mail displaying no return address or a return address that is actually the address of the intended recipient would be sent to a Postal Service mail recovery center." Presumably they detect the latter case by looking at where the postage is deposited, as others have suggested. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I vaguely remember that in the Netherlands, such a letter is (or was) just delivered anyway because with such a mass process any other action than the standard one would be too expensive. Provided it doesn't happen too often. For most people the cost a stamp is nothing compared to the value of the message in the letter, so people are not going to take risks, so it will only happen infrequently, when people forget. They've got the stamps in their homes anyway. But that may be changing now that paper letters are getting ever less common, as they are being replaced by email. I think that in the last 5 years I have sent a stamped letter maybe twice. All other paper mail is prepaid - either a response to something sent to me or in a special envelope to my bank, which doesn't require a stamp. So maybe the way the post office deals with this has changed by now. Oh, btw, what about holiday cards? Little point in returning them to sender. :) DirkvdM (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly point in returning holiday cards to the sender. Grandma's around the world are sticking $20 bills inside cards to send to distant grandkids. SteveBaker (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Dirk meant postcards, sent to friends at home while one is on holiday ("vacation"). As he says, not a lot of point in sending those back where they came from, as most people will have finished their holiday and returned home by then. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well as I mentioned above (after you posted), if you are sending mail while on holiday you would usually put your return address as your home address. At least I would. Of course, most postcards don't have place for a return address so it's a bit of a moot point there Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect Dirk is right. I've always thought that is what the post would do particularly if it's only slightly short of postage but I've never been sure. I suspect it's usually the same if they do return to the sender. Of course, once people start to game the system, things may change Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to the mix my personal experience: Two of my friends (A and B) once took a piece of their homework and folded it in half, put A's address in the to spot, B's address in the from spot. They threw it in a public mailbox 2 hours away. It ended up in B's mailbox, without being actually sealed or anything. --omnipotence407 (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Publically Produced, Privately Provisioned Postal System

The above question got me thinking about my usual perspective on a publicly (produced) mail system (I make the distinction between "production" and "provisioning" of a good or service because government can choose to intervene in a market in either or both ways, however, choosing to "provision" (deciding who sends what where) isn't exactly applicable in this case).

What arguments exist in support of a public postal system in developed, western countries? Or more specifically, if one didn't exist today, what argument exists to create a public system rather than let the free market (with some subsidies for low-volume locations) do the job?NByz (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

One thing that comes to mind is the legal aspects of the mail system. Even with subsidies, FedEx or whoever could still decline to deliver mail to a given location, and the government would have no way to mail you your tax bill, which is a part of the government they tend to keep running with great dedication and zeal. --Sean 12:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not really an issue though - the US government passes laws requiring telephone and broadcast TV services to service everyone in their coverage area no matter the cost or difficulty. It could to the same with private mail service. In fact, it's only the existence of the USPS that makes such a law unnecessary. However, just as with the phone service - there are issues with international connections. For example, there are agreements between countries in the world so that (for example) a letter posted in France with a French postage stamp and the money from that stamp going to the French government - will be accepted by the USPS and delivered free of charge to the appropriate address here in the USA...PROVIDING THAT a letter mailed in the USA with a US stamp on it gets the same treatment in France. This bilateral agreement is an essential thing. However, if there were more than one "carrier of choice" - so if FedEx and UPS were the mail carriers and the USPS didn't exist - there would doubtless be major problems in how mail from France got delivered in the USA - would FedEx do it for free? Would UPS do it for free? If the law required it to be done for free would FedEx refuse to do it on the grounds that FedEx mail to France is delivered by FedEx's French subsidiary so they aren't getting fair recompense for their efforts in delivering mail from the French postal service for free. This is not by any means a simple matter.

What's interesting is how this is developing with the Internet - where the costs for sending a message are shared 50/50 between sender and recipient instead of being paid for exclusively by the sender. Where the bandwidth requirements are symmetrical - it all seems very fair - but when (for example) YouTube transmits millions of times more bytes than it recieves - the symmetry is broken and ISP's want to start charging them for the bandwidth they consume.

It's fairly amazing that telephone services still work across national boundaries - but somehow that's still working out OK. It may not last! SteveBaker (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In the Netherlands, that's what we 'always' had. Then, in the privatisation craze of the nineties, the postal service was also privatised. In the name of the free market. Except that there is no free market because there is still just one postal company (for normal mail, I mean, not for special deliveries or mass mail). Everything has remained the same. So I now wonder about the opposite. How does this work in a free market? Does every postal company have its own stamps and mailboxes in the streets and mailmen? Sounds horribly inefficient. Does that even exist anywhere? I have travelled a lot and sent mail from all over the world and can't remember being faced with choices between companies anywhere. DirkvdM (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So long as there is just one 'preferred carrier' you're OK - it doesn't particularly matter whether it's government owned or private. In the letter market - there is (essentially) no choice - but even in the Netherlands, you must have a choice for parcel mail - I'm sure your local postal service competes with (at least) FedEx. Parcels are (increasingly) where the business is because letters are being made largely obsolete by email, phone and fax - where purchasing things over the Internet has pushed the parcel business to new heights. If you consider the mail services as becoming increasingly a parcel service that also supports very formal document handling (eg contracts and such - which are frequently Fed-Ex'ed around the world) - then the world has already changed. SteveBaker (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In NZ we do have competing postal services since ~1998[1] [2]. But they were never really successful and many died [3]. Some were or are used to a limited by businesses I believe but still I don't think much. Indeed I'm only aware of one that offered a full nationwide service and only a few offered international mail. Local parcel services and couriers have of course been more successful although even there, many aren't used that much by mainstream customers, more by customers who use them frequently (businesses, people who sell a lot of stuff on TradeMe etc). Even then NZ/Courier Post does dominate and these are more commonly courier or almost courer service (i.e. relatively high cost but relatively high speed.) For cheaper parcel rates albeit at a lower speed and with limited or no tracking and limited insurance NZ Post is really the only provider. Also these are all semi-local companies though, none of the lare multinational conglomerates have any real presence except perhaps for the important document business (not sure there). (The same in Malaysia from my expeirence.) Technically I guess since NZ Post has an agreement with DHL you could say they have some presence but nearly anyone using Courier Post is more thinking NZ Post then DHL. The international market is somewhat different of course where the multinationals (DHL, FedEx, UPS etc) do play a role although only in the courier market. (Again same in Malaysia,) Actually in terms of international parcels I don't know of anywhere that has competition in the cheaper, low speed, with more limited tracking and insurance, non courier market (although particularly in Asia, many postal providers offer services that somewhat blur the distinction) and whenever I sent stuff between Malaysia and New Zealand or elsewhere I use post as has anything I've order over Ebay or wherever been likewise sent. Definitely in the case of the US the USPS is the only one I've ever seen offer decent rates. Nil Einne (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Name of a song

I play the piano but am in a different country from it at the moment (the last time I played the piano was 1.5 years ago) so I don't have my music book. I remember a song quite well; it had "night" and "symphony" in its name but I am unsure what its exact title is. Does anyone know what I am talking about? It might help to note that its first three notes follow a similar pattern to the toy symphony (depending on your version of the song). PST

A little nightmusic? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Thanks. PST

Being the sub-title of the piece, in English it's usually given the full treatment with capitals, and the "Nachtmusik" is broken into 2 words on translation - "A Little Night Music". -- JackofOz (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

rising of moon

could you tell me in which direction the moon rises? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.50.199 (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

From the east, just like the Sun and all the planets and stars. It's actually caused by the Earth spinning. Sometimes a little more northeastish or southeastish, but always eastish. --Sean 12:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct, but the question might be asking which direction it moves in the sky as it rises. This is also the same as the Sun: it rises in a direction that angles away from the vertical by an amount equal to your latitude, and toward the equator. For example, in Houston, at latitude 30° north, the Sun or Moon rises in a direction that is tilted south by 30° from the vertical. (That is, this is true initially. As it continues rising, its path becomes more and more horizontal until it starts going down again.) --Anonymous, 13:00 UTC, January 12, 2009.

To illustrate this, at the North and South Poles, in their respective mid-summers (late june and december), the Sun (and presumably invisible Moon) move horizontally just over the horizon, and in their respective mid-winters (late december and june) it moves horizontally just under the horizon. At other times of the year, it moves somewhere in between there, but always parallel to the horizon. (Actually, because this changes, there should be a slight angle, but that's nitpicking.) As you move away from them, you get an ever bigger angle, until at the equator it rises vertically. At least during the equinoxes (equinoces?) (late march and september). How is this at other times? Does it rise and set vertically then, except not at opposite ends? Interested though I am in astronomy, I have always found it difficult to wrap my head around these things. DirkvdM (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be different where you are (although I can't imagine that's actually the case), but the new moon is not invisible in Australia. The outer ring is visible if you know where to look. A light-filled metropolis might obscure the moon and the stars, but that's not the same thing as saying they're invisible. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? I've never seen a new moon like that and I've spent most of my life living in the countryside (in the UK). The new moon is only above the horizon during the day anyway (or possibly just before sunrise or after sunset, I guess, it will never stray far from the sun, though), so light pollution can't be a factor. --Tango (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There may be a terminological confusion here. The only time it's actually invisible (according to the article, but I'm still not 100% convinced it's ever truly "invisible") is when it's a dark moon. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

According to that article, the new moon (as we use the term today) is in the middle of the dark moon period. The only time it's going to be 100% invisible is during a solar eclipse, but obviously you can see its silhouette then. At non-eclipse new moons, there will be a tiny amount of light visible at either the top or bottom (depending on whether it passed above or below the sun), but it will be so close to the sun that it can't be seen. If it weren't for the atmosphere, you could shield your gaze from the sun and see it, but the atmosphere scatters the light so even that wouldn't work. --Tango (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to check this out in a few days when the new moon turns up, and see what I can see (or not). -- JackofOz (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The apparent movement of the Moon at the Poles is a little more complicated than Dirk's description. The (invisible) new Moon is, like the Sun, below the horizon at the Poles around their respective winter solstices, since the Moon at that point in its revolution around Earth is more or less on the same side of Earth as the Sun. However, when the Moon is full, it has moved to the side of Earth facing away from the Sun, so at each Pole's winter solstice, the full Moon circles the horizon at nearly 23° above the horizon. During winter, as the Moon waxes, it rises while circling gradually higher above the horizon over a period of several days. The situation is the opposite at the summer solstice. At the summer solstice, the Sun circles each Pole not quite 23° above the horizon. The (invisible except during eclipses) new moon makes a similar motion. At the summer solstice, a waxing crescent Moon might be faintly visible near the horizon in a sunlit polar sky, but the full Moon would be below the horizon and would never appear. Marco polo (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

By extension, the full Moon rises to the north of east in the Northern Hemisphere winter (December-January) sky. At its highest point, the full Moon is as high as the summer sun in the Northern Hemisphere winter sky. The full moon arcs around to set north of west in the northern winter. By contrast, in the northern summer (June-July), the full Moon rises south of east and climbs no higher at its highest point than the winter sun would climb. The situation is the opposite in the Southern Hemisphere. (The full Moon rises south of east and sets south of west in winter (June-July) and rises as high as the summer sun; it rises north of east and sets north of west in summer (December-January) and rises only as high as the winter sun.) Marco polo (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's in fact even a little more complex than that. The orbit of the moon is tilted about 5 degrees with respect to the ecliptic. That implies that at its highest point, the full moon will be somewhere between five degrees higher and five degrees lower than the summer sun in the Northern Hemisphere winter sky. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 01:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

'suitability of carburetor from Kawasaki KE 175 on-off road motorcyle for a smaller KE 100'

I foolishly purchased a 28 yr old small motorcycle (Kawasaki KE 100). Unfortunately there is no carburetor on the bike and the only I have found on line is from a 1978 KE 175. Is there anyone who knows if the carb from the 1978 KE 175 will work for the Kawasaki KE 100 ?

Thanks for any light you can shed. So far I haven't been able to get any mechanic's opinion on such and adaptation. AZcardfan (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a KE100 carb on sale on eBay right this moment - $80 'buy it now' price - for the next 13 hours only - it's here: [4] Even if you don't buy it - grab copies of the photo and compare with your KE 175 carb. SteveBaker (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor breakdown by country

Is it possible to find out the breakdown of the nationalities of all the editors that edit the English Wikipedia? BigDunc^Talk 23:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No. The best you can do is find out the location of the IP addresses people edit from, which data is gathered at meta:Edits by project and country of origin. Algebraist 23:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for swift reply. BigDunc^Talk 23:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Also see Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality. Dismas|^(talk) 23:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Though note that the data from that category means nothing. Most Wikipedians don't add themselves to such categories, so the category itself has little meaning as to the overall breakdown. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you took my comment to mean that it would provide accurate data for all Wikipedians. There are only ~130 Wikipedians in that cat. Dismas|^(talk) 04:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely more then 130. I think you're confused by the subcat figure Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I remember seeing a pie chart of editors by nationality somewhere around, though I can't think where that might have been, especially as it has little relevence to anything I remember looking at on here recently.148.197.114.207 (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

When - precisely - does a new US President assume power?

In Britain, and presumably elsewhere, there is a protocol that dictates, "The King is dead, long live the King (or Queen)", which clearly passes power from the last heartbeat of the deceased monarch to the new incumbent, even long before a somewhat delayed Coronation. But in the US, and presumably elsewhere, the transition from old to new is not so absolute as both the outgoing and incoming participants are usually alive and standing close to each other on inauguration day during a relatively sombre and lengthy ceremony. So when, precisely, as a point of pedantry, will G.W. Bush cease to be Commander-in-Chief and relinquish his powers as President? And who would assume control should a national emergency occur on the scale of 9/11 during said ceremony? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.190.110 (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution, §1: "The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin." --Milkbreath (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The only problem with that is that it doesn't specify a time zone. Presumably local time at the capital is intended, but is this laid down in law anywhere, or just a customary interpretation? Algebraist 00:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's about when GWB ceases to be president. But it does not mean that Obama suddenly becomes president at the stroke of noon. There's no "the king never dies" doctrine in the U.S. He does not become president until he's actually sworn in, which would be some time after noon. In the intervening minutes, I'd say the office of president was vacant. Unless they chose to swear him in before noon to avoid the gap, but that might be unconstitutional. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That view seems to be contradicted by the clause and the terms of their successors shall then begin. Algebraist 00:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The official annotated constitution is clear on this: the president-elect becomes president before he/she takes the oath/affirmation of office. Algebraist 00:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Its probably largely a moot point. The apparatus of the government keeps working before, during, and after the few minutes between the end of the Bush administration and the start of the Obama administration. As the case of David Rice Atchison shows; this is an old problem. There was actually technically almost 24 hours between the end of the James Polk presidency and the swearing in of Zachary Taylor. Some have claimed for a long time that that made Atchison the acting president for that day; however most serious scholars simply hold that either a) Taylors presidency retroactively applied once he was sworn in on March 5, 1849 or b) The nation was without a president on March 4, 1849. Strangely enough, the fabric of space-time was not ripped apart by the lack of a President. Its a fun little activity to decide what happens between the official end at noon and the swearing in, but it really has little bearing on how the real government works. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Since launching an attack on the US would take weeks or months then, but only takes minutes now, the importance of not having presidential gaps is now higher. So, has there ever been a critical national emergency that spanned the swearing in ceremony ? StuRat (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The government and military could likewise respond in minutes. If a fleet of nuclear missles were bound for the U.S. during the swearing in ceremony, I doubt that the entire military of the U.S. would be sitting around waiting and saying "Come on, hurry it up there!" for the President to become official. Its not a one-man show. The President is important, but not omnipotent, and he's also unavailible for other reasons for just as long as when he'll be being sworn in. The government doesn't stop when he takes a particularly long dump, does it? Indeed, if his decision making was needed immediately, they would just issue the oath in the car on the way to the White House and he would dive right in to whatever crisis he was needed to preside over. Consider that Lyndon Baines Johnson was sworn in on Air Force One on the way back to Washington, and that Calvin Coolidge was issued the oath by his father in the Parlor of his Vermont farmhouse. Its REALLY not a big deal; the ceremony is all nice and stuff, but the government will survive if we don't have a ceremony and a big speech. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what happened if the president refused to attend, or otherwise missed out on his own swearing in. His term of office would begin (as per above), but would he be able to wield power? I imagine his political opponents would start kicking up a fuss after a day or two, but what if he signed bills into law in the interim? I suppose that'd be a question for the courts, but I wonder what sort of precedent they'd rely on. 24.2.176.64 (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec; I had the same question, but since I went to the trouble of typing it out, I'll let it stay) Just idly musing here: If Obama took the view that he becomes president at the stroke of noon, and whether or not he's sworn in makes no difference, what would happen if he said "Stuff it. There's too much to be getting on with to waste time on a largely symbolic ceremony, so I'm just gonna start doing the job I was elected to do"? What constraints would he encounter by not being sworn in? -- JackofOz (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the Constitution specifies that he must take the oath. If he refused to take the oath, I suspect the Supreme Court would take the view that he was not in office. Presumably his duties would pass to Joe Biden, assuming the latter had taken the oath. --Trovatore (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The wording of the constitution is that he becomes president prior to the oath/affirmation, but must take the oath/affirmation 'before he enter on the Execution of his Office'. I have no idea how such a crisis would work out in practice. Algebraist 03:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Also there's no requirement that there be any ceremony surrounding it. Traditionally the oath is administered by the Chief Justice, but Coolidge (I think it was) was famously sworn in by his father, in a lonely cottage, upon learning of his predecessor's death. --Trovatore (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8: "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." (Note the outmoded irrealis.) Mr. Obama would be in violation of the Constitution. I suppose that he could be removed from office for that if he persisted. I think we need a Constitutional scholar at this point. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I take that to mean that he would be the president, and would be entitled to all the respect normally shown to occupants of that office; but he would be incapable of actually doing anything relevant, such as sign laws. That would be even worse than having a lame duck president. This duck would be crippled (or a double amputee). For all intents and purposes, therefore, he may as well not be the president until he's sworn in. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, since it would take rougly one minute or less to actually say the oath, it seems a minor point. As I said above, in the event of a crisis, he could be administered the oath by any duly appointed public official (judge, justice of the peace, notary public, etc.) in the car on the way to the White House if needed. The actual stating of the oath would not take up enough time to meaningfully prevent Obama from doing his job. A big ceremony with speeches and pomp and circumstance on the steps of the Capital would take a while, but as noted, there is no ceremonial requirement. He just has to say one 35-word sentance. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In face of the above problems, The Vice-President takes the oath before the President. Phil_burnstein (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know how many have "affirmed" instead of "sworn"? I imagine the "affirmation" version was to placate those who have a religious ban on oaths (Jesus said swear not at all, a pretty direct command that Christendom hasn't traditionally taken very seriously). I have to say that the "affirmation" thing strikes me as a fairly technical and transparent evasion of the command, which continues Let your yes be yes and your no be no, for more than this comes from evil. --Trovatore (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Our article Oath of office of the President of the United States gives Franklin Pierce as the first president to affirm rather than swear, but fails to indicate if there have been any others. The article on Pierce claims Herbert Hoover is the only other case. Hoover was a Quaker, while Pierce seems to have felt an affirmation had less religious connotation than an oath, as evidenced by his not using a bible. Our article oath indicates that an oath, properly understood, always involves invoking some sacred witness. This idea lives on in the English court system, where I (as an atheist) was made to give a juror's declaration beginning 'I do solemnly declare and affirm' while my colleagues said 'I swear by almighty God'. Algebraist 22:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've heard that Nixon "affirm"ed. —Tamfang (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a minor point, in the context of this question, which is about establishing "the precise moment" when a president-elect becomes president. Thinking of scenarios where a president dies or resigns, am I right in believing that the V-P does not instantly and automatically become president at the moment the incumbent left the office (in the way that Prince Charles would instantly become king should QEII abdicate or die)? My understanding is that, in these circumstances, the VP does not accede to the presidency until they're sworn in. Because he/she could say "Thanks, but I'm going to decline. I hadn't mentioned this, but I was going to resign from the vice-presidency next week anyway, so I'll still be leaving. Give the job to whoever's next in line". Otherwise, the new president would have to formally resign if they didn't want the job. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, various aspects of the Constitution deal with all of the various eventualities. Understand that any invokation of the United States presidential line of succession beyond the Vice President is untested, and would likely lead to a Constitutional Crisis, however Article Two of the United States Constitution, the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution all work together to answer the question. The 20th for elected but not yet served presidents, and the 25th for deceased presidents. Article 2 states "the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected." The current law, which is the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, may very well be unconsitituional, as it contains two persons (Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Senate) who may not meet the consitutional definition as "Officer"s of the government, which elsewhere in the constitution ONLY refers to executive branch members. The question is whether, legally, the phrase "Congress shall provide by Law" trumps the understood definition of "Officer". Since it has never been tested, the question is unanswerable at this point. However, the situation you describe, which is a drawn-out succession crisis because of a VP refusal to serve, is entirely different than a gap of a few minutes between the death of a president and the swearing in of the new one. Very different problems. The former is a real problem, the latter is no problem at all. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)