Talk:Legislation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (legislation) for discussion of legislation-naming conventions

Unsigned and undated comment (pre-August 2014)[edit]

It should be noted that some nations have little executive power, for example in the case of a parliamentary system.

This is a highly misleading way of putting it (in parliamentary systems the executive has much more de facto power than in a presidential system), and not really relevant to the topic. chocolate.

World View[edit]

Seems to me that this article is a bit US-centered. Of course there is a limit on how much of a world view we can get as it's about the Westminster system. I may feel this way because a lack of citations (and the only ext link is to the Library of Congress) I am not an expert. Thoughts? Anon 121.45.207.183 (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promulgated and enacted[edit]

which is promulgated (or "enacted") by a legislature

Is "promulgated" used more than "enacted" in certain countries? in the US, "enacted" is by far the more common term. Thesmothete 17:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see enacted as the more everyday term, with promulgated as the more precise or technical term. Although there's not a lot of content in the article on the latter, it pips enact, which is curently just a redirect. However, I agree that enact may be more preferable, and only suggest keeping it this way for now because otherwise we would have what appears to be the "dominant" term (ie. the wikified link to a standalone article) as the alternative in brackets. What do you think? Obey 18:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Promulgated is used by a regulatory body with unified authority. Enacted, implies prior deliberation and consensus. -SM 21:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Stub?[edit]

Is this article really a stub anymore? I personally feel that it isn't. Please state your opinions. Clarkefreak ∞ 23:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statutory Law v. Legislation[edit]

I think these are better separated. Statutory law is the cold dead law after it has been enacted by the legislature and is being used by courts and the public -- legislation is the living act of creating statutory law.

Satutory law is part of a range of law that judges interpret that also includes caselaw, constitutional law, natural law, divine law, etc. Legislation is but one way to create a statute, which can also be created by referrendum or decree. Thesmothete 04:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your 2nd para makes sense. This being the case, we have much work to do on both articles to bring out the major clarifications which these distinctions require. I think I get the gist of your 1st para, but characterising the statutory law used by courts and the public as "cold dead law" is very problematic; the contradiction is embodied in the very next sentence. Whichever way we go, we must steer away from arbitrary definitions for legislation/statute. Do you see legislation as the more common, everyday term like promulgated/enacted above? Obey 08:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the difference is more pronounced in how the concepts are used in practice than it is what they mean in the first place. Sort of like the difference between "automobile industry" and "traffic congestion" -- one causes the other. Or, more closely to what we're dealing with here, "cooking" and "cuisine" -- one is how and the other is why cooking is only about the making, cuisine is about the eating, though technically about the making -- we wouldn't merge them. I'm sure as both articles continue to develop, we will see the differences emerge. And the "living vs. dead" is not NPOV, of course! But I'm allowed to do that in the discussion section :) Thesmothete 01:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stay the Same[edit]

The articles should stay separate however it should be renamed "Statute Law." The article requires more depth, it needs to explain the other names it is refered to and its relationship with common law.

poise between legislation and constitution[edit]

Does constitution constitute legislation? Is constitution a subset of legislation? Is there any similarity between the two apart from constituon's character to appear as a form of statutory law (maybe even just written law)?

This issue heavily influences the article Constitution of Kosovo and moreover the main page's In the news template which reads:

"

Tiger Woods

Wikinews – Recent deaths – More current events...

".

More preciselly, the following wording "A new constitution takes effect in Kosovo,... " is discussable if not even heavily biased. All the best. --Biblbroks's talk 22:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese translation of the term is based on the following....[edit]

--222.67.203.106 (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--222.67.203.106 (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to Merge. NukeofEarl (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing that the article "legislative act" should be merged into this one. I can't see that "legislative act" functions as anything other than as a more precise way of saying "legislation", and it will never have any content that cannot reasonably be placed over here. Also, "legislation" is much more likely to be used both when searching and when editing. I doubt that I need add anything further, other than to say that this is my first attempt at a merger, so apologies if I've made any howlers! Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

We may also think about merging in Act of Congress and Act of Parliament. They are after all more specific titles to the more generic legislative act article, and suffer from this-is-what-X-is-called-in-some-countries syndrome. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 15:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

shenhat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.13.46 (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this-is-what-X-is-called-in-some-countries[edit]

I think there's a lot of confusion regarding what Wikipedia is about. Indeed, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. But articles should not be a mess of terms in different countries in different languages. I think there should be a rule "one article = one concept".

Here's a specific example:

--Vanuan (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some Proposed Changes[edit]

Hello, I am employed by Boston University's Fineman & Pappas Law Libraries. After reviewing this Wikipedia page, I believe that information from one of our faculty's scholarship might provide a valuable addition to this page. I would appreciate it if this requested edit could be reviewed.

Add introduction to beginning of overview section: Legislation to design or amend a bill requires identifying a concrete issue in a comprehensive way.[1] When engaging in legislation, drafters and policy-makers must consider the best take into consideration possible avenues to address problem areas.[2] Possible solutions within bill provisions might involve implementing sanctions, targeting indirect behaviors, authorizing agency action, etc.[3]

Cf2022 (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Cf2022[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kealy, Sean. "African Parliamentary Knowledge Network Legislative Handbook: Using Evidence to Design and Assess Legislation" (PDF).
  2. ^ Kealy, Sean. "African Parliamentary Knowledge Network Legislative Handbook: Using Evidence to Design and Assess Legislation" (PDF).
  3. ^ Kealy, Sean. "African Parliamentary Knowledge Network Legislative Handbook: Using Evidence to Design and Assess Legislation" (PDF).
 Done Zoozaz1 talk 22:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legislation&oldid=1193925096"