U.S. v. O'Dell

[Livefire]

Shoonra,

I like the fact that you make me go dig for truth....keeps me on my toes! I found this link on the net explaing the history of the US Code and I found something interesting....the code didnt repeal any former law....hmmmm.....sounds like the Annotated Statutes still held force of law. This was put out in 2004
Seems this author thinks they are still fresh and timeless.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:...lnk&cd=4&gl=us

United States Code: Historical Outline and Explanatory NotesPrepared by Richard J. McKinney, Assistant Law Librarian, Federal Reserve Board, for Law Librarians' Society Program, November 9, 2004Last Revised in June 2006A. Background and History to the Codification of U.S. Laws and the United States Code1) Revised Statutes of 1873 first codification of U.S. law - 70 titles. Many errors corrected in act ofFeb. 18, 1875 (ch. 80, 18 Stat. 316, pt. 3) and act of Feb. 27, 1877 (ch. 69, 19 Stat. 240).2) Revised Statues of 1878 - new corrected and updated edition of Revised Statutes, legal (but notconclusive) evidence of law, also said to be prima facie evidence (act of Mar. 2, 1877, ch. 82, 19Stat. 268 as amended by act of Mar. 9, 1878, ch. 26, 20 Stat. 27; s.a.7 Cong. Rec. 1137, 1376-77).3) Supplements to Revised Statutes by Judge Richardson (Res. of Jun. 7, 1880; 21 Stat. 308 and actof Apr. 9, 1890, ch. 73, 26 Stat. 50). Other supplements authorized.4) Commission established to revise and codify criminal and judicial laws of U.S. (act of June 4,1897, ch. 2, 30 Stat. 58 and act of Mar. 3, 1899, ch. 424, 30 Stat. 1116). From this process a Criminal Code (act of Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, 35 Stat. 1088-1159) and a Judicial Code (act of Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, 36 Stat. 1087-1169) were eventually enacted, repealing related prior law.5) As time went on commercial publishers tried to fill gap in providing an up to date codification -U.S. Compiled Statues Annotated by West Publishing Co., Federal Statutes Annotated by Edward Thompson Co., Barnes Federal Code by Uriah Barnes via Virginia Law Book/Bobbs-Merrill Co's.These works were useful in the preparation of the U.S. Code (60 Cong. Rec. 4735, Dec. 20, 1920).6) In 1919, Col. E. C. Little, Chairman of the House Committee on the Revision of Laws began thework to codify U.S. law, appointing Prof. William Bur**** of Kansas as Reviser. Others aided.7) The completed work was introduced as H.R. 9389 (60 titles) in the 66thCongress and passed theHouse on Dec. 20, 1920 (60 Cong. Rec. 571-574). Bill died in Senate. (s.a. H. Rept. 781, 2 pts.).8) Bill reintroduced with corrections in the 67thCongress as H.R. 12 and it passed the House unani-mously on May 16, 1921 (61 Cong. Rec. 1479), but again it died in the Senate after being debatedin the House and Senate (64 Cong. Rec. 2084, 2090, 2846, 3137, 5019, 5087-5102; H. Rep. 68).9) The bill, with an updated supplement, was reintroduced in the 68thCongress as H.R. 12 and unani-mously passed the House on January 7, 1924 (65 Cong. Rec. 643, H. Rept. 2). It was referred to the Senate Committee on the Revision of the Laws where it was reported unfavorably on the grounds that it contained some 600 errors, omissions, and inaccuracies. Instead the Committeereported S.J. Res. 141 (S. Rept. 722), to establish a commission to revise laws. It passed theSenate (66 Cong. Rec. 3800) and was reported from House Committee (H. Rept. 1573) w amdts.10)The two revision committees then employed staff members at West Publishing Co. and Edward Thompson Co. to do the work of codification using Little's work (60 titles) as a basis and checking with experts in law and government departments (see 67 Cong. Rec. 7787; H. Rept. 69-900).11)In the 69thCongress, the new Code (laws in force as of Dec. 7, 1925) introduced as H.R. 10000(50 titles), reported by the Committee (H. Rept. 900), debated and passed the House on Apr. 19,1926 (67 Cong. Rec. 7787-7793) to be prima facie law until July 1, 1927. The Senate Committeereported it (S. Rept. 832). It was debated, amended and passed by the Senate (67 Cong. Rec. 9737,10403, 10478, 10480, 11799, 11963, 11971) as prima facie evidence only. House concurred (67Cong. Rec. 12076) and was signed by President on June 30, 1926 (44 Stat. pt. 1, Public No. 440).12)The Code enacted no new law (not really), repealed no prior law and in cases of inconsistencythe statutes were to prevail. However, like the Revised Statutes, which was enacted into positive law, the Code is to encompass the general and permanent laws authored by Congress (not private and local matters, nor annual appropriations). Some 537 errors were later found; 88 ofthem errors of substance. See H. Rept. 70-1706 to accompany H.R. 13622, a bill to provide Supplement I volume to Code (act of May 29, 1928, ch. 911, 45 Stat. 1008).

[Shoonra]

The only thing this says clearly is that the FSA was prior to the first issue of US Code (which was 1924).

The Library of Congress catalog entry for FSA dates it as 1904"
http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebr...04012232&SID=1


It therefore predates Social Security and FICA by at least a dozen years.

[Livefire]

...and in cases of inconsistency, THE STATUTES WERE TO PREVAIL. That pretty much seems to seal the deal there. So every thing that has come after in the Code is subordinate to the statutes. That also makes sense seeing that the FSA was a compilation of the laws of a general and permanent nature. I also found on llmc.com
that the FSA was supplemented until 1925. So it wouldve had effect on the portions of law forming Social Security. They arent going to supplement outdated law...it will be superceded by something new.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Livefire

So every thing that has come after in the Code is subordinate to the statutes. That also makes sense seeing that the FSA was a compilation of the laws of a general and permanent nature.

I think you misunderstand. The FSA was worked up by a commercial publisher (Edward Thompson, later absorbed by West Publishing) as a convenience. The US Code was similarly worked up (by West editors under contract to Congress) to be a similar but somewhat more official convenience. The US Code also provided the sections of laws that were of general and permanent nature and is being kept up-to-date even now.

The FSA doesn't, in any way, outrank the USC. The USC is built up from sections of statutes, just like the FSA. But in this thread FSA was being cited for a court decision cited in its (unofficial) commentary ... and, as I emphasized, without the slightest relationship to Social Security since the FSA came out long before Soc.Sec. was even proposed.

[rottweiler]

duplicate post

[rottweiler]

Maybe the guy sited the wrong publication.

::U.S.C.S. (United States Code Service)

The U.S.C.S. is very similar to the U.S.C.A. It is published by Lawyers Co-op/Bancroft Whitney. It was preceded by a similar compilation entitled Federal Code Annotated (1937-1972, Bobbs -Merrill). The U.S.C.A.receives annual pocket parts and quarterly supplements called 'Cumulative Later Case and Statutory Service' covering newer cases and legislative changes to statutes between annual pocket parts.

Also, U.S.C.S. provides monthly advance pamphlets that include texts of the new laws and tables indicating code sections that have been affected by this new legislation. Other services include: annotations to court decisions under statutory section; cross references to other Co-op publications, overall index, tables volume, procedural and court rules; popular name table of federal acts; index to the Code of Federal Regulations and federal agency rules.



:ifferences between U.S.C.A. and U.S.C.S.

1. U.S.C.A. provides more annotations to cases than U.S.C.S.
2. U.S.C.S. includes some cases not found in U.S.C.A.
3. U.S.C.S. annotations of cases are sometimes longer if the cases are considered particularly relevant.
4. U.S.C.S. preserves more closely the language and context of the original Statutes at Large text. This also means it deviates more from the text of the U.S.C.
5. U.S.C.S. provides cross references to many Lawyer's Co-op secondary sources and are more extensive than West's cross references.
6. U.S.C.S. is often more timely because of its monthly advance service.
7. U.S.C.S. provides agency procedural rules.
http://www.law.ufl.edu/lic/guides/federal/usc.shtml