Positive Law, Federal Register and USC

Well, through some of my studies I have found that there are a number of Titles of the United States Code that have never been enacted into positive law.& My initial studies (which started by somebody telling me about this)&reveal that the titles that have not been enacted&are 3, 8, 18, 21 and 28.&
This is all very interesting information but from what I can tell, it really doesn't carry that much weight because law actually comes from case cites.


So, if I am way of base here please let me know and help me to understand why.


Also, the reason that I put Federal Register in my title is because it looks to me like this is the information that would be really useful but they make it as confusing as they can so that it can not be utilized.& This is a quote from a letter written in March of 2000, from the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, "The United States Statutes at Large, prepared by the Office of the Federal Register, provides a permanent collection of the laws of each session of Congress, chronologically arranged.& They are legal evidence of the laws contained in them in any court.& However, they are not easy to use because there is no attempt to arrange the laws according to their subject matter or to show the present status of an earlier law as it has been subsequently amended."
So, if I am reading this correcly, whoever the office of the Federal Register is, sure isn't doing a darn thing to help us out.


Let me know what you think,


Sara-Jane

I am posing here to bring it up to recent posts again.& There is so much activity on this forum now that Some of this stuff gets lost really fast.


Later,


Sara-Jane

Hey Sara-Jane,


If my memory is correct, the Federal Register is nothing more than a publishing company. It publishes&legislative/administrative law or/and comments&in chronological order like a newspaper. Then those decisions later get re-published and organized in their respective proper publications (FCC volumes, FTC volumes, etc.).& The purpose of the Federal Register is for persons who are following legal/administrative/regulatory developments by the moment as they occur, and then can use the immediate publication as "law" or evidence or whatever as appropriate. Basically, you never use the Federal Register to do legal research.


As for the U.S.C., where did you find out these titles are not really enacted? I would love to look this up myself b/c U.S.C. is "positive law" and for it not to be is like saying the color white is actually black. However, I wouldn't put it past the suckas.


Law comes from many different sources, case cites are but one but are a "primary" source of law.& United States Code is another, or any "code" for that matter, and would also be considered a "primary" source of law. Legal encyclopedias such as Corpus Juris Secundum, Am. Jur., etc. are also a source of law, but are considerd "secondary" and thus carrying less weight.& Of course, when thinking about "code" or administrative law, lets not gloss over the difference between "legal" and "lawful".


It is a maze, but it does make some sense over time.


-squirrels


&

I was originally told that is was not enacted into "positive law" by a friend of mine that is a Juris Doctorat (sp?).& He then sent me documentation for titles #21 and 18.& When I get some time (like I'll ever get time to do anything), I am going to write the same places that my friend did and ask about the other titles.


I'm not home right now but when I get home I will read the letters again and provide you with more specific documentation.


Later,


Sara-Jane

Okay, this is what I have been able to figure out so far.& This all happened in the 80th congress.& They met on the dates of June 1, 3, 4, 7-12 and 12-19 of 1948.& The titles that I mentioned earlier were not signed into law at that time.& I will have to do further research to find out exactly what date the particular titles in question were "made" law.& The point is that they were made law when congress was not in session, therefore they were never enacted.& I have several letters in my possession, written by government agencies in response to questions about&this, &stating these facts.


Find listed below&answers to some questions about this issue the letter is&written from the Law Revision Counsel:


1.& You are correct that Title 21 has not been enacted into positive law.
2.& Convictions under particular sections of Title 21 occur because it is the law of the land.& Whether a title is positive or non-positive law relates to the ultimate evidentiary source for the text of a law, not to the legal effect of the provision.


Now, I am having a hard time understanding the exact meaning to all of this but I did a little searching online, and I think that the link below from a law school, might help to clerify it.


http://www.law.uh.edu/guides/USCvCFR.html


Let me know what you think.


Sara-Jane

Sara-Jane,


Neat link!!& At one time, I thought I would never have to read about "bluebooking" ever again, but (now here is my cheesy Godfather line) just when I thought I was out, they brought me back in!!!!&


I don't know if you are familiar with "The Bluebook" - A Uniform System of Citation, so please excuse me if I am being a bit basic.


This website is primarily directed to how to properly cite U.S.C. and C.F.R. in regards to "positive" and "non-positive" law; say, when you might be compiling a brief to file in court.& This way the judge won't get all hissy-pissy when you don't conform and cite your law&to the "proper method" that has been designed by some students from Harvard or Chicago (can't remember which originally&created the book) way back in the day (early 1900's?). Ironically (or predictibly!), it is the most confusing and organizationally challenged book you will ever find.


I did not know (or remember; CRS syndrome!) that some U.S.C. may not be positive law! It looks like the suckas achieved passing law legally, but not lawfully once again.&


To sum up what I gained/remembered from it, even though a Title of U.S.C. has not been enacted by the legislature (positive), it is still presumptively legal and the court may in their evidentiary discretion give it the weight or substance that it feels it deserves. Of course, it may be a good idea to try and rebut the legal presumption, but that is taking on a whole new ballgame which most folks do not have the resources/money/time/energy/knowledge/etc. to take on.


-squirrels


&

<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Montana,
your child cannot enact laws pertaining to you. You can enact laws pertaining to your child. All governments are our children. None of those governments can enact laws governing us, their creator. All of those laws are for creations of the governments- corporations, etc. Or, if you will, legally created entities…persons. The only way they apply to any of us is via our strawman, which is a legally created entity. Then for anything to come upon our real shoulders they must prove that we are surety for the strawman.</FONT>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Jim</FONT>

I am copying Rory's post from Contractors licenses to here because it applies so very well. Hope you don't mind Rory and I thank you greatly for that quote.
Jim



<TABLE height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD class=storypost2 vAlign=top noWrap>Friday, March 12 2004 @ 09:43 AM EST
Re:Contractor's licenses??</TD>
<TD class=storypost2 align=right>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD class=storypost2 vAlign=center align=right></TD>
<TD class=storypost2 vAlign=center><IMG height=1 width=2></TD>
<TD class=storypost2 vAlign=center align=right></TD>
<TD class=storypost2 vAlign=center><IMG height=1 width=1></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=storypost2 vAlign=bottom align=right colSpan=4></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=storypost2 colSpan=2>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=2><IMG height=2 width=1></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=2><IMG height=1 width=10></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=2><IMG height=2 width=1></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR>
<TR height="100%">
<TD class=storypost2 vAlign=top align=left colSpan=2 height="100%">
<TABLE height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD class=storypost2 vAlign=top>



There is a town very close to us that is recalling their mayor,&so that sort of thing is on people's minds here.&We have many in our committee that have run for before and want to run for commissioner again. It's getting interesting around here.



P.S. I have a quote here that I don't know where&it came from&and was wondering if any of you know it's origin.



Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states: "No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts." The individual's right to contract is unlimited and no State may interfere with that right. Very few Americans know that they have a fundamental choice: To live their lives and conduct their businesses under common-law jurisdiction or under statutory jurisdiction. Common Law is the law of the land, the law of the Constitution. Statutory law is legislated law.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Libertarian]

Larry Becraft's take on it is here:



http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Ebecraft/titles.html



As a newbie, I'd appreciate someone's reaction to his points.