Talk:Legislation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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.

Contents

[edit] Promulgated and enacted

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)

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)
Promulgated is used by a regulatory body with unified authority. Enacted, implies prior deliberation and consensus. -SM 21:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub?

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)

[edit] Statutory Law v. Legislation

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)

  • 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)
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)

[edit] Stay the Same

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.