American Legal Terms

hola everyone

what is the difference between:

BILL
ACT
LAW

in the american legal system? and does it differ from the British legal system?

try an online legal dictionary

The terms you are asking about are really about legislation, not the legal system. For tht Glossary of Congressional and Legislative Terms

Bill: a legislative proposal for enactment of a law. It is called a bill until it is passed and signed, at which time it is a law (statute) and is no longer referred to as a bill.
Senator Snort thinks that skateboarding should be illegal, so he writes up a proposed law that outlaws skateboards. He then submits it to the US Senate for consideration, using a set procedure. This submission is called "introducing a bill."

Act: Legislation (a bill or joint resolution, see below) that has passed both chambers of Congress in identical form, been signed into law by the President, or passed over his veto, thus becoming law. A bill also becomes an act without the president’s signature if he does not return it to Congress within ten days, Sundays excepted, while Congress is in session. Technically, this term also refers to a bill that has been passed by one house and engrossed (prepared as an official copy).

In the US Congress and most local and state systems, there are two kinds of acts. One kind is meant to become a law; the other kind is a resolution that describes the intent of Congress or a legislature (for example, proclaiming National Skateboard Appreciation Month or commending a hero skateboarder for saving a little child). Sen. Snort's proposal is described as "an act to prohibit use of skateboards." If the Senator has a big ego, he may add "This may be referred to as the Snort Child Protection Act."

Law: a statute, ordinance or regulation enacted by the legislative branch of a government and signed into law, or in some nations created by decree without any democratic process.

There are other definitions of "law," but I think this one fits your context. Once Congress has passed the Snort Child Protection Act and the president has signed it, it becomes law. Americans are then obliged to obey it.

There's a difference between "a law" and "the law". "The law" is a collection of rules, statutes, constitutional provisions, ordinances, regulations, judge-created law. "A law" is, as nutrax said, a particular piece of legislation (that is, a rule or set of rules passed by a legislative body.)

Bill and act: see nutrax. A bill is a proposed law or change of law. Once the bill has gone through all the stages toward adoption, it's called an act.

Example: "Racially segregated schools are against the law in the US. They were outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Wikipedia says that the bill was introduced by John F. Kennedy."

Thank you both nutrax&shilgia for the replies.
So a law and an act are basically the same? did I get it right?
Can a president present a law project on his own to the Congress?(a bill?)
Can a president make decrees on his own? ( Here in Argentina we have "decretos de necesidad y urgencia" as a faculty of the Executive power)
Usually miss used and abused.

And .. is it the same in U.K. ?

I bet Sen. Snort would lose all the teens' votes once they get the right age to vote! Please let the skateboards roll!!!!hehe
Gracias!

So a law and an act are basically the same? did I get it right?

Yes. (Taking shilgia's distinction between "a law" and "the law" into account.)

Can a president present a law project on his own to the Congress

Not quite. The proposal could only be formally introduced by a member of Congress. But the president often does have a member introduce bills that have been drafted in the White House or in the executive departments.

Can a president make decrees on his own? ( Here in Argentina we have "decretos de necesidad y urgencia" as a faculty of the Executive power)

He can issue Executive Orders within the law. But see the discussion of the Youngstown Steel case there. I suspect he has less authority than the president of Argentina but I don't know much about the Argentine situation.

Gracias Vinny! and you do right staying away from Argie situation.. hehe wish so could I!
Presidents here can sign laws, I am not sure if they have a limited amount of possibilities or is as many as they need to pass in order to be able to rule.
They mostly use it when they know they will lose if presented at Congress for debate.

I am reading Howard Zinn's book ( A People's History of the U.S.) and it mentions all the time the three words and made me curious as to what the difference was.

Thank you all for teaching me the difference.

To make things more interesting, there are also "ordinances" and "regulations."

Ordinances are simply laws enacted by a city or a county. Cities and counties have small governing bodies, such as a city council. These have maybe 5-10 people. Members do not introduce bills, but rather present "proposed ordinances." These things are not called "acts."

REgulation:
rules and administrative codes issued by governmental agencies at all levels, municipal, county, state and federal. Although they are not laws, regulations have the force of law, since they are adopted under authority granted by statutes, and often include penalties for violations.

It works like this (at the federal level). Sen. Snort's bill passes. But all the bill says is "it's illegal to use a skateboard and the Dept. of Transportation needs to enforce it." Someone has to come up with a legal definition of "use a skateboard," for instance. Is it OK for a museum to demonstrate one? Is it OK to film a movie where someone uses one? What should be the penalty for using it? All those details about implementing a law.

There is a law (statute) already on the books that says the Dept. of Transportation can pass regulations to implement any law that the agency is stuck with. To do that, the DOT drafts a regulation and publishes for the public to read and comment. (There is a whole formal structure for doing that.) If there is enough interest, the DOT may hold one or more formal public hearing and take testimony about the draft regulation. Or they might just say " you have 60 days to send us written comments." There are provisions for the public to demand a hearing. DOT must prepare a response to the comments. They don't have to send each commenter a personal response; it's usually one document that covers it all. That document has to be made public.

If all goes well, the DOT then formally adopts the regulation. If comments point our serious flaws, DOT revises the draft and sends it our for comment again. Eventually, they produce something that makes it through the process and the regulation is adopted. Federal regulations wind up in something called the Code of Federal Regulations.

Regulations have the advantage of being much easier to revise as needed than do statutes. Regulations can't do anything that isn't allowed by the original statute. So if Sen. Snort's act says that using a skateboard is a felony, the DOT can't change that to a misdemeanor. If the act outlaws only skateboards, DOT can't use it to justify outlawing rollerblades.

Edited by: Nancy Pelosi

And "statutes".

oy vey!And Nancy joined the thread! I find her brilliant though (in both versions, our Nutrax and her usual self, Nancy P.)

we also have the ordenanzas and regulaciones. Ordenanzas are also laws enacted by the city hall (Ordenanza Municipal).
I am not totally sure how it is in BA downtown, now that has a new political state, is no longer a district.

#6

Cities and counties have small governing bodies, such as a city council. These have maybe 5-10 people.

That's probably generally true. The New York City Council has 51 members, though.

Do your city councils have representatives of the different parties, even local parties?
Do they exist?(local parties at neighbourhoods)

Our city council in my town is small but has a variety of political parties representatives *councellors? mostly dominated by Peronistas usually.
It is usual to see fights (ACTUAL fights with sticks, guns et al) at the door of the Council, stones fly etc.. is interesting all the negotiates done in the coffee shop at its corner.. I can not find out how many members it has; the info is not online.

The set-up in the US makes it pretty difficult for any new or small party (any party other than the Democrats or Republicans) to get off the ground.

For example: In the 1940s the New York City Council was elected by proportional representation. Then a couple of Communists were elected, and so the system was changed to the current district system to make sure than wouldn't happen again.

Hasn't E.Hoover forbid the Communist Party in USA?
What happened to the party of Ross Perrot and the Ecollogical party there was?
We have small parties which usually make alliances with the big ones ( Peronistas or Radicales) in order to get a seat in Congress or another Institution.

As far as I remember Deputies represent different parties and Senators represent States.
There is a number of Sen. per state(provincias) and there are different Deputies per political party and they enter in proportional amount to the votes received.
It is in our Constitution.. should re read it since we are about to have elections soon, June 28th or around that date.
The government moved the elections forward knowing they would not be able to cope with the forthcoming crisis if they respect the usual date established for elections, October 30th.

Edited by: itsasmallfuturepresident'sworld1

Australia even had a referendum on whether ot ban the Communist Party or not, in around 1951. The majority in that referendum voted to keep it legal. Did the USA ever go so far, and would it have required a popular vote, or just an executive order by the President, or a majority vote (what kind?) by Congress and/or the Senate?

In California, by law, local offices are nonpartisan. That is, the people who run for office are not supported by any political party. A member of a city council could be a Democrat, a Republican, a member of some other party, or affiliated with no party at all, but it cannot be officially mentioned as part of the campaign. We don't have parties at the neighborhood level.

The level of corruption in all organisations here is so huge that parties try to intervene everywhere, paying for votes, and or giving freebies to voters in order to get their votes.
It is either truth or an urban legend that during an election Peron used to give the right shoe to voters who would vote for him and he would give the other one once he was elected. ( I am not sure if it was Peron or someone else, definitely from his party)
If any argentino is reading this, will call me a "Gorila" immediately..

Parties are active at the state level and in msot cities. (However, in some cities the Democratic party is dominant - 49 of the 50 members of the Chicago City Council are Democrats) Some smaller cities are officially non-partisan.

The U.S. has never banned the Communist party, although there was a time when its members were investigated and harassed. I don't think it would be possible to do so without changing the Constitution,

what does non partisan mean? that they do not represent a political party?
if so.. what do they represent and what are they elected for?
(wish I could ask it in more proper English)

It's like Nutrax explained in post 14. People running for office cannot make known which party they represent, or receive support from political parties.

That's right. The local officials represent the citizens of the district in which they were elected, not any political party. "Everyone"may know that Joe Blow is a Republican and Jane Doe is a Democrat, but Joe and Jane cannot officially represent their parties, nor can the party openly support them--including money for campaign expenses. The League of Women Voters (a nonpartisan political organization) puts it this way

Q. What is a nonpartisan office?
It is an office for which candidates' names appear on the ballot without party designation. No party may nominate a candidate for nonpartisan office.

Q. Which offices are nonpartisan?
Local offices such as most city council members, county supervisors, all judgeships, including the statewide office of member of the California Supreme Court, and all school boards, including the statewide offices of Superintendent of Public Instruction and Insurance Commissioner, are nonpartisan.

Q. Are there nonpartisan primaries?
Yes. Some local nonpartisan primaries such as those for judges are usually held at the same time as the statewide regular primary. A candidate for a nonpartisan office who is on the primary ballot is selected if he or she wins more than 50% of the vote. If not, there is a runoff election in November between the top two candidates.

Q. Do all nonpartisan offices use primaries?
No, some nonpartisan offices, such as most city councils and school boards, do not use primaries. Candidates run as independents and the person with the most votes wins even if it is not a majority.

thank you again!!

#17 -- The leaders weren't just harassed, they were sent to prison.

Congress couldn't ban the party, so they passed the Smith Act which came pretty close to doing just that.

According to the book, seems they were also exiled mostly.. into communist Russia. Many "escaped" there.
Are the unions still as strong in USA as they were in the 20's?

#23 -- I think maybe you're thinking of the first Red scare, after the First World War. Many of the communists were foreign-born and had not become citizens (or in at least one case, that of the anarchist Emma Goldman, it was just denied that she had become a citizen as she in fact had, by marriage, under the laws of the time) and so could be deported.

By the time of the second red scare after WWII, most of the Communist leaders were American born and so couldn't be deported.

A lot of Trotskyists were locked up during the Second World War, which they opposed. The Stalinoid Communists were happy to testify against them.

Yu arecorrect as usual Vinny. I was confused with the first war days.
Thank you again.

#22.

But why couldn't Congress ban the party? Could an Executive Order by the President have banned the party? Does a referendum of the American people have any relevance in all of this? The Constitution?

Is the Communist Party unbannable in the US?

#36 --
>But why couldn't Congress ban the party?

Congress can only do what the Constitution allows it to do.

Could an Executive Order by the President have banned the party?

The President can only do what Congress, under the Constitution, allows him to do.

Does a referendum of the American people have any relevance in all of this?

There's no such thing as a referendum of the American people in the constitution. Some states do have provision for referenda.

Is the Communist Party unbannable in the US?

I think it is, yes.

I'm simplifying to a degree. Roosevelt by Executive Order had all the Japanese and Japanese-Americans, i.e. American citizens of Japanese ancestry, on the west coast rounded up and placed in prison camps away from the coast.

Congress hadn't authorized that. Still, the Supreme Court decided that that it was constitutional. Judges really don't like second-guessing decisions that the president makes in his capacity as commander in chief of the armed forces.

I doubt it that the equivalent would be found to be constitutional today. I doubt that the equivalent would be tried today. The closest recent thing was the roundup of thousands of Muslims after 9/11, but that didn't involve American citizens.

The way the US Constitution works, the duties of Congress and the president are spelled out. Otherwise, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution

Political parties are such a basic part of our political system today, that many people might assume the Constitution must at least mention parties in one way or another... but there is absolutely no mention of political parties anywhere in the Constitution. In fact, in the times of the Articles of Confederation, there weren't even any parties; factions, perhaps; regional blocs, yes; but no parties. Not until the Jackson and Van Buren administrations {early 19th C.] did organized parties really take hold in the American political system.

Executive Orders have two main functions: to modify how an executive branch department or agency does its job (rule change) or to modify existing law, if such authority has been granted to the President by Congress. Executive orders are not mentioned by the Constitution, but they have been around a long, long time. George Washington issued several Presidential Proclamations, which are similar to EO's (Proclamations are still issued today). EO's and Proclamations are not law, but they have the effect of statutes. A typical modern Proclamation might declare a day to be in someone's honor. Historically, they have had broader effect, such as the Emancipation Proclamation. A typical EO might instruct the government to do no business with a country we are at war with. Executive orders are subject to judicial review, and can be declared unconstitutional. Today, EO's and Proclamations are sequentially numbered. The average president issues 58 EO's a year. As of March 13, 1936, all EO's must be published in the Federal Register [that's the place formal regulations are made public]. The first to have been so published was #7316, by President Roosevelt.

Thanks... Now...

Congress can only do what the Constitution allows it to do.

Where does it say that Congress can't ban unfashionable or disruptive political parties.

The President can only do what Congress, under the Constitution, allows him+ [ or her ] +to do.

Doesn't the President have overriding powers over the legislative, and in fact, independent powers vis a vis Congress, as a "separation of powers" system of government might have, meaning that The President can only do what Congress, under the Constitution, allows him to do. is not quite on ball?

There's no such thing as a referendum of the American people in the constitution. Some states do have provision for referenda.

That's something I find interesting. Referendums, and the view of the popular vote, of common majority vote (so very, very important in countries such as Switzerland, apparently), have no place in the USA at the federal level.

The Constitution?

Is there nowhere in the Constitution to ban parties?

I'll add that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was also under the preseident's war powers. It didn't free any slaves in territory controlled by the United States; it declared that slaves in territory in rebellion would be free as of such and such a date. The idea was to create a force of potential opposition to the Confederacy within the Confederacy, so it could be done within the war powers of the president.

Lincoln would certainly not have had the power under the constitution to free slaves within territory controlled by the United States. It took a constitutional amendment to do that. (Although they had earlier been freed by act of Congress, with compensation for the owners, within the District of Columbia, directly controlled by the federal government.)

Where does it say that Congress can't ban unfashionable or disruptive political parties.

It is silent on the subject. That means Congress is not allowed to do it.

You might construe the First Amendment as forbidding Congress to ban a party:
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There have been assorted court cases testing free speech and peaceable assembly. Generally, to be restricted there must be a "clear and present danger." There must be an advocacy of immediate illegal action, not just advocacy of something distasteful. "We need a revolution to establish Communism" is protected. "The revolution starts tomorrow; pick up your guns at the warehouse" is not.

A 1969 case held that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

Doesn't the President have overriding powers over the legislative

You may be thinking of the presidential veto. If both houses of Congress pass a bill, it doesn't become law until and unless the president signs it. But if he vetoes it, Congress can still enact the law with a 2/3 majority of each house.

You're right that I overstated things in saying that the President can only do what Congress allows him to do. (I'm going to go on saying "him". Understand "or her" to be included if you like, OK?) For example, Congress can't take away the President's power, granted by the Constitution, to appoint judges and ambassadors etc. (with the advice and consent of the Senate). But where there's no explicit grant of authority to the president in the constitution, then he can't do what Congress has forbidden him to do.

He can try, and there has been litigation in this area, much of it having the name Nixon somewhere in the caption.

It's also true that Congress can't delegate to the president powers that are reserved to Congress by the constitution. Up until the 1930s, courts struck down a fair amount of legislation on these grounds; more recently the courts have been friendlier to legislation granting extensive authority to the president. But I bet if Congress were to pass a bill allowing the president to set income tax rates, the courts would strike that down. That's not likely to happen, of course.

Referendums... what are the relevance of these to the American people (at least, at the Federal level)?

The Constitution?

Is there nowhere in the Constitution to ban parties?

There are no national elections, even for president. Each state holds its own elections, even for president and vice president. Congress gets to set the day for Presidential elections, but that's all.
>The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

"Chusing the electors" gets complicated. It's part of the whole Electoral College thing which is outside this thread. Just assume that the time and day for chusing electors means "presidential election day."

States and local entities (cities, counties etc.) usually hold elections on the day set by Congress, since it makes things easier. But they don't have to. They could have only presidential voting on that day and pick some other day to vote for governor, Senator, Member of Congress or dog catcher.

So, since there are no national elections, there are no national referendums. Some states and localities allow referendums, as Vinny notes, but not all do. IN California,
>Pursuant to article II, section 9, of the California Constitution, a referendum is the power of the electors [voters] to approve or reject any statute enacted by the Legislature. A referendum cannot be used on urgency statutes, statutes calling elections, or statutes providing for tax levies or appropriations for current expenses of the state.

Thanks.

So there is nowhere in the Constitution to ban parties?

Is there nowhere in the Constitution to ban parties?

I think nutrax already said that the constitution doesn't mention parties.

And I think it's safe to say that if Congress could have banned the American Nazi party or the Communist Party it would have.

One reason the Constitution is silent on political parties is that in 1789, when the Constitution was ratified, political parties as we know them really did not exist. There were political factions or groups, but they operated more like clubs or present-day lobbyists.

In any case, the constitution is pretty explicit about the powers of Congress. In effect, it says "Here's a list of what Congress is supposed to do. If it's not on the list, you can't do it." As I mentioned, it is silent about political parties (or any other political group for that matter) so Congress can't do anything about them.

The amendment I quoted about freedom of speech and peaceable assembly is part of the first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. A number of people felt that "If it's not on the list, you can't do it" was not explicit enough, so they immediately proposed a series of amendments that guaranteed a bunch of basic rights. One of the causes of the American Revolution was that the Brits had some laws that prohibited people from getting together to discuss how pissed off they were with the British government and maybe we need a change here. So the first amendment included rights of free speech & assembly.

You could argue that the formation and operation of a political party is a peaceable assembly.

At various times, there have been laws that attempted to control free speech, especially in time of war. You shouldn't speak well of the enemy or say the US is wrong--that sort of stuff. The Sedition Act of 1918 was used to harass the Communist Party into the underground. But that law was unpopular and it was repealed in 1921. It withstood one court challenge as to its constitutionality, but it is generally assumed it would not withstand a challenge today.

Hello everybody again
Is there any project to add more amendments to the Constitution in the near future?
How does an amendment work to get to be a valid amendment/ bill then law?

It should be mentioned that there is controversy about all this. Dick Cheney thought that the president had a lot more power than I do, for example.

But I don't think anyone reputable, nor even Dick Cheney for that matter, thinks that either the president on his own or Congress could simply ban a political organization.

There are two ways ot formally propose amendments:
1. 2/3 of both houses od Congress agree on a porposed amendment
or
2. 2/3 of state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)

Once an amendment has been proposed, it must be ratified. Either:
1. Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it
or
2. Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment which repealed Prohibition. (Prohibition was itself a Constitutional amendment.)

The Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Beginning with the 18th amendment, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was 7 years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a "reasonable time" might extend.

The president cannot veto an amendment or negate ratification.

There tons of ideas for amendments. Hundreds surface in Congress each year.

Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.

The 6 that were never ratified are listed here on Wikipedia.

Some proposed Amendments lists all sorts that have been considered by congress.

I'm not aware of some that are seriously being considered right now, although the Equal Rights Amendment will probably come back. There has also been serious talk about changing the provision that to be eligible for the presidency, you must be a "natural born citizen."

George W. Bush has endorsed at least seven amendments to the Constitution. One limiting marriage and to one man and one woman, one allowing people who desecrate the flag to be criminally punished, one mandating that abortion be treated the same as murder, one mandating a blanced federal budget (hah!), and others that I don't remember.

I am about to finish the book which triggered all thse questions, and I am amazed at it. I know it is quite biased but yet, very interesting as a whole process.
Is there significant variation between a D or an R government general lines of policies?
Are Unions still strong there? are they legal? are there still strikes?
Is the Ku Klux Klan still acting?
(more questions tomorrow when I finish the book!!!)

Unions are still legal but I don't think they can be described as strong. I believe only 8% of the private-sector work force is organized. In the 1950s it was about one-third A bigger percentage of the government work force is organized but those unions don't have the right to strike or generally to bargain over wages and hours -- just benefits and things like day-care centers for children.

Strikes are much less common than they used to be. Starting in the Reagan administration it became easier for companies to hire replacement workers for strikers.

There's a proposal before congress now which will make it easier and cheaper for unions to organize workplaces, but its passage is uncertain. If Republicans engage in a tactic called a filibuster, they can block legislation in the Senate with only forty (out of 100) votes, which they have.

In my childhood, there were many more liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats than there are today. There are real differences between the parties today, although the Democrats would probably be a center or center-right party in European terms.

I haven't heard of the Klan doing anything in twenty or thirty years. And even then it was hardly active.

I've wanted to read that Zinn book for a while.

if Republicans engage in a tactic called a filibuster
this made me laugh...filibuster got to mean the same in Spanish=filibustero a.k.a Pirate? hehehe.. why does it bring a sarcastic smile to my face...

May I make more questions?
if so:
what is the line of poverty now ( before this huge crisis) how much had a person to earn not to be under it?
What is the % of the National Budget for the International Military Defence?
(I suppose it must be huge since the 9-11 attack)

Vinny, I can mail this book to you on Monday if you want, will have finished it either tonight or tomorrow morning. The book is really interesting, lots of facts I have never studied at school or highschool since we never finished the History programs not to get to the Democratic governments ( I studied all through dictatorship until my second year of University)
A republican acquaintance of mine has diminished it and said Bah! is just a commie.. LOL I find it interesting and informative.

What else could I read on these lines? (not necessarilly commie, just informative and with less opinions) and more facts

The poverty level is defined by the US Census Bureau, depending on family size. You'll find a chart here that gives the various income levels.

The most recent data they published was for 2007.
>In 2007, the family poverty rate and the number of families in poverty were 9.8 percent and 7.6 million, respectively, both statistically unchanged from 2006.

poverty rates ranged from 7.1 percent for New Hampshire to 20.6 percent for Mississippi.

Hola Nutrax, thanks again. I asked this since at some point normal salary per year was around 500 USD, which now seems ridiculous...Do not remember if this was under Lincoln or after that...

In Argentina the amount of people under the poverty line is growing despite the populist government of ours. The Institute which was created to measure this index is under the government's control and totally biased and makes funny reports as inflation was 0,5% in last month or similar.. if you go to the supermarket you realise that is NO WAY possible.

I'm surprised no one posted this.

Granted, it doesn't offer any help on acts.

Without clicking, I imagine that that's the Schoolhouse Rock Just a Bill. I thought of that and then forgot, plumsole. Thanks.

plumsole, that is excellent! thanks for posting it.
BTW, book is finished, it was excellent. ( People's History of USA)