Talk:Enabling act

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Venezuela Low‑importance

	Venezuela portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Venezuela 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.VenezuelaWikipedia:WikiProject VenezuelaTemplate:WikiProject VenezuelaVenezuela
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was automatically prioritized by a bot per the category key. Please ensure that the importance value is appropriate before removing the `\|autoi=yes` parameter.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is an Enabling Act the whole law, or only a paragraph or section?

The US Constitution specifies what rights the Congress has - but is the Constitution the enabling act, or would that be just the section of the document that specifically grants the rights? I am not a lawyer - any official answer would be appreciated. unsigned comment by 66.129.44.244 on 12:44, 5 June 2006

I doubt you'll get an "official answer" since, hmmm, the only officials who could give a definitive response for the USA would be the Supreme Ct, and they are notoriously lax in keeping their wikipedia information current. However, an unofficial response would be that the US Constitution is NOT an enabling act; it is an agreement between the States to create a national government of limited powers. While that involves somethng like a delegation of the states' powers, no authority considers a constitution an enabling act. Instead, legislation such as the examples in the article are what the term enabling act refer to. rewinn 04:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Alterative Names?

My local county zoning board calls mentions "Enabling Clause" or "Enabling Statute". I'm not sure which term is correct - clause, statute or act? Do they all mean the same thing? Should there be a disambiguation page? unsigned comment by 66.129.44.244 on 12:44, 5 June 2006

I wouldn't make a different page for those terms, without strong documentation of a distinction. In general, they are about the same thing, although it's possible there may be distinctions. rewinn 04:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Act, Statute, and Clause are different, but I don't have my dictionary handy. I'll be going to my local Public Library next week -- do you want me to look it up in their thick Webster's? Also, I've heard that someone invented a box with a typewriter screwed onto it, and like our favorite Magic 8-Ball toy, you just type in your question and like magic! it gives you an answer back! They call it "Gurgling on the InnerTubes (InterWebs?)" or something like that. You might try that. 63.152.30.138 (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enabling Act (United Kingdom)

Add a stub here. {Slash | Talk} 23:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny ran quickly to the

QED 63.152.30.138 (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merged

I've merged in all the stubs, since they were not making good articles on their own. The US specific article was just a list of other articles. The UK article was about proposed enabling acts, and did not read as a stand alone article. The Venezuela article was still a stub, and does not appear to be expandable as was. --Barberio 19:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all articles pointing to Enabling act (Venezuela) but the discusion at Talk:Enabling act (Venezuela) should be merged here before deleting. There is also Enabling Act (Venezuela) (uppercase "A", nothing links there) and Ley Habilitante (only a talk page links there). These redirects can be deleted. JRSP 20:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merged talk from Enabling act (Venezuela)

JRSP, what is your objection to http://www.cdfe.org/ and why did you delete the general description of what an enabling act is ? Sandy 02:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly biased. Unnecessary in any case, in fact I would leave only the DoS source, all others are superfluous. The context paragraph was too long for so little material, I think the wikilink to Enabling act is enough, all the info in the deleted paragraph is there. Actually, the whole stub is just a subset of "Enabling Act" and it has been almost 3 weeks in that state, it seems there is little interest in the article JRSP 05:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intro shortening

I removed some information from the introduction that is duplicated in the body of the article, because it did not refer to the content of the article generally, and had lead to confusion. It had also asserted that a particular use was the most famous use, which was neither true nor sourced. rewinn 04:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty with putting Nazis first

While it seems natural to put Germany first, due to alphabetic ordering, there is a difficulty in that as as result the 1st instance of an enabling act is historically vile. This tends to denigrate later, non-controversial uses such as by the United States in forming states. I don't have a handy solution other than to reverse the merge and let short articles be short articles. rewinn 04:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't really stand alone as short articles as they were, because of the lack of expansion, particularly the 'use in the US' which could only be expanded as a list, and 'use in the UK' which lacked any kind of context as it's own article. --Barberio 12:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just alphabetical, there's als othe fact that Hitler's enabling act was easily the most famous and important one in history. When somebody searches for "enabling act" on Wikipedia, that's usually what they'll be looking for. 71.203.209.0 20:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States

There is only a paragraph or so on the US version of enabling acts, but I find the subject interesting. Firstly, the US version should probably not be here, and should have its own article, as it is very different from what is otherwise refered to as an enabling act. It is similar in name only. Also, from what little information is given, an act authorizes the people of a territory to frame a constitution, and lays down the requirements that must be met as a prerequisite to statehood. What role does Congress have in the actual drafting of the new states constitution? Can it set requirements that the constitution must meet? - 58.161.225.127 04:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Enabling act. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061211104109/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/news/2006/061109.asp to http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/news/2006/061109.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 19:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Enabling act. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary?

Perhaps Hungary should be mentioned on this article

The Rules Enabling Act of June 19, 1934

This Enabling Act completely revamped our court systems in the United States. First, it moved the focus of our courts from "unalienable rights" to "rules of the court" Second, this act united common law with equity law. This has led to common law being abrogated by equity law. Third, it nullified all other rules and laws in conflict with the rules of the court. This put the act in contradiction to our constitution. Fourth, the seventh amendment was violated by establishing administrative courts that do not support the seventh amendment. Fifth,the word "substantive" has NEVER been defined. According to the ninth amendment, we the people reserve the right to define and maintain the definities of the word "substantive". But the court uses the phrase to make it mean whatever they prefer at the time. Sixth, where does it say in the Constitution that the legislative branch can give the judicial branch a power that it doesn't have in the first place? Oh, wait, no one is allowed to change the wording of the Constitution unless through the amendment process. This power was NEVER given to the judicial branch and could NOT be without an amendment.

Why has THIS enabling act been left out?

Rules_Enabling_Act_19_Jun_1934_text.txt page 1089 of 2074 @ 150 images per page

https://www.loc.gov/resource/llsalvol.llsal_048/?sp=1089

specifically: https://tile.loc.gov/image-services/iiif/service:ll:llsalvol:llsal_048:10891064/full/pct:100/0/default.jpg

Image with text: 1064 73d CONGRESS. SESS. II. CHS. 651, 652. JUNE 19, 1934. [CHAPTER 651.] June 19, 1931. [S. 3040.] [Public, No. 411.] Supreme Court of United States. Power to prescribe rules in civil actions at law. Rights of litigant. Effective date. Rules in equity and law may be united. Proviso. Right of trial by jury. Effective date of united rules. June 19, 1934. [S. 3285.] [Public, No. 416.] AN ACT To give the Supreme Court of the United States authority to make and publish rules in actions at law. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Supreme Court of the United States shall have the power to prescribe, by general rules, for the district courts of the United States and for the courts of the District of Columbia, the forms of process, writs, pleadings, and motions, and the practice and procedure in civil actions at law. Said rules shall neither abridge, enlarge, nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant. They shall take effect six months after their promulgation, and thereafter all laws in conflict therewith shall be of no further force or effect. SEC. 2. The court may at any time unite the general rules prescribed by it for cases in equity with those in actions at law so as to secure one form of civil action and procedure for both: Provided, however, That in such union of rules the right of trial by jury as at common law and declared by the seventh amendment to the Constitution shall be preserved to the parties inviolate. Such united rules shall not take effect until they shall have been reported to Congress by the Attorney General at the beginning of a regular session thereof and until after the close of such session. Approved, June 19, 1934. Qsmxpilot (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know, from this article here in Wikipedia, I begin to question why we even have "Enabling Acts". It seems that these types of acts are a way to circumvent a Constitution. We have the amendment process. Why are we trying to circumvent our Constitution with enabling acts? Though many enabling acts have been passed by congress, I don't think they are constitutional and they ALL should be repealed. If we're going to expand the government, let's do it properly. Qsmxpilot (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]