Talk:Act of parliament

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Page links?

Currently, this page links to Bill (proposed law), which is just a one-line stub. This, however, is a very thorough article which covers most of the information on Bills that I can think of - suggesting to me that Bill (proposed law) be made a redirect to Act of Parliament. I'm slightly unsure, however, whether there exist systems that have Bills but not Acts, and therefore won't be covered by such a redirection. I'd appreciate any information you may be able to lend me. (see also Talk:Bill (proposed law)) - IMSoP 13:37, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Went ahead and redirected the Bill (proposed law) page to here, no one seemed to be to worried about it anyways--Dhuss 03:25, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

EC Act

I think more needs to be said in the parliamentary sovereignty section on the impact of europe. in particular, stating that the authority to not apply acts of parliament only exists b/c of this act needs to be added to. it is not universally accepted that the EC act may be repealed like any other statute (in the very least, itis certainly not subject to implied repeal). perhaps a comment on the political difficulties of repealing the act would be helpful.

Odd paragraph

I've removed this

===Parliament Acts===

Parliament Acts are executed by the Administration and its superior and

directive dome, the Government (specially using the administrative regulations),

are applied by the judicial power (judges), and must be obeyed by everybody.

as it doesn't make any sense. I think it's trying to say that the government and courts enforce acts of Parliament. Morwen - [[User_talk:Morwen|Talk]] 13:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

This needs some more sourcing from reliable sources and an improved WP:LEAD to get to B class. Aboutmovies 04:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Style

I've reverted much of the recent edits regarding the capitalisation of "Act"; after discussion here and here, it seems that this is quite contentious. I'm happy for it to go back to lowercase, once consensus is formed, but I'm distinctly unhappy with the idea that the article had explicit footnotes stating stylistic opinions as fact.

Any thoughts on whether it should be "Act of Parliament" or "act of Parliament"? Shimgray | talk | 18:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting an edit in the middle of discussion and imposing your personal preference despite an overwhelming list of sources speaking against it is not a good idea. You have consistently ignored the clear consensus of the dictionary sources listed in the discussions linked to above.--Espoo (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be best to focus on the matter at hand rather than engage in accusations. Please review Wikipedia:Ettiquette and feel free to modify your above comment appropriately. Hiding T 12:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your changes because they were made without any discussion, and as comments elsewhere have shown, they have turned out to be contentious, so we return to the old version and debate. This is the normal way to do things; a contentious change shouldn't remain in the article until it's agreed on. This change is definitely disputed, and a long way from being agreed on!

You may feel that there is a "clear consensus" among an "overwhelming list" of sources supporting you, but this is your interpretation of those sources, & your selection of sources, & your decision on what to treat as a valid reference. I find it surreal (and astonishingly blinkered) to talk of a consensus in support when everyone else who's turned up to comment so far seems to have disagreed with your position.

As to the footnote, however we decide on capitalisation, it simply isn't appropriate to include a lengthy digressive footnote treating a point which is so obviously contested as being a matter of self-evident fact, and I have removed it accordingly. Shimgray | talk | 00:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On balance, I prefer capitalisation. I don't think there's much to be gained from looking at what other sources do, because they do both the upper and the lower case, so I think this is a matter that is left to editorial consensus. I think the style should be for an upper case A, the MoS doesn't discuss legislation while the naming conventions quite clearly state that a capital A should be used. Hiding T 12:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#act (statute) --Espoo (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of this discussion was, IIRC, that there was no consensus to make these changes. James500 (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten about this entirely until today! Huh. Given it seems to be stable at Act rather than act, I've removed the slightly confusing footnote arguing that the latter is correct. Shimgray | talk | 23:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No legal credentials

I have been giving this matter some thought, and I have come to the conclusion that the dictionaries etc cited as sources for this have no legal credentials and are not therefore qualified to determine the correct use of a legal term of art as a legal term of art. To put it simply, they are not reliable sources. A reliable source would be something like Halsbury's Laws of England or Halsbury's Laws of Australia. James500 (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Act of the Assembly

I think a separate link should be made to Acts of the National Assembly for Wales, as these powers are primary legislation (as well as Measures, but I am not suggesting them as this article is about 'Acts' made by a parliament. Newone2012 (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common law?

A draft Act of Parliament is known as a bill. Law not written is common law.

Does the common law in this sentence refer to the English legal system or laws that are not codified? It is rather confusing. Komitsuki (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the author intended something like "judge made law", but you are right that it is confusing and quite unnecessary in context. One way in which it is unhelpful is that, of course, judge made laws are written down in the case reports from which they are drawn. "Not codified" gets nearer the truth, but in England we would understand "codified" to mean something like "put together into a single document". Quite a bit of primary legislation would not normally be described as "codified".

I don't think there's any need to mention this point at all here. A bill is a draft act. That is all that we need to say. Francis Davey (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one from the Royal prerogative article?

It is clear that the existence and extent of the power is a matter of common law, making the courts the final arbiter of whether a particular type of prerogative exists or not. (see Royal prerogative)

This usage of "common law" seems to be obscure. Komitsuki (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Stat as in abbrev of Statute

{{Help}} Is the correct style cap or small "s" in Stat? There are some articles with cap and some with small.66.74.176.59 (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on whether its an abbreviation of a proper noun or not. For example, if for some reason one was abbreviating statute of limitations to stat. of limitations it would remain lowercase in running text as a common noun phrase (unlike if one was making a defined acronym, such as SOL for statute of limitations), but if one were abbreviating Statute of the Jewry to Stat. of the Jewry then it would remain capitalized as a proper noun phrase.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Act of Parliament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]