senate bill vs house resolution bill

[cdsea10]

can anyone lead me to a difinitive source ....
i have read some saying a house resolution applies only to the federal zone of the district columbia, territories and possessions
and a senate bill applies to the citizen of the 50 states.

for example the 1939 internal revenue code was 'enacted' by the senate and house and was a house resolution bill, hence some say it applies only to the federal zone.

i did find where:
Every Act of Congress or joint resolution begins with an enacting formula or resolving formula stipulated by law. These are:
 Act of Congress: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled."
 Joint resolution: "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled."

[Shoonra]

Wrong altogether. A Bill usually creates a law or commands or accomplishes something. A Resolution usually expresses an opinion without imposing anything on anybody, and an ordinary Resolution is usually very temporary and often the expression of just one chamber (and not signed by the Prez), but a Joint Resolution may actually have a more lasting and widespread effect very similar to a bill. For example, the legislation that designates some date as National Pecan Pie Week is usually a Resolution. A proposal to amend the Constitution is usually a Joint Resolution.

But there are plenty of exceptions and inconsistencies. All in all, the distinction between a Bill and a Joint Resolution is a refinement that is honored only in the breach.

The Congress used to legislate for the District of Columbia by the ordinary forms of legislation (bills) just as it does for the country as a whole.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The Congress used to legislate for the District of Columbia by the ordinary forms of legislation (bills) just as it does for the country as a whole.

Where's the amendment for Article I:8:17?

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such [u]District (not exceeding ten Miles square)[u] as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and [u]to exercise like Authority[u] over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the ******** of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Still lookin' for that Amendment to 4:3:2

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State

Oh, I think I found it . . .

Must be the unratified 14th Amendment

[cdsea10]

"There are two types of bills--public and private. A public bill is one that affects the public generally. A bill that affects a specified individual or a private entity rather than the population at large is called a private bill. A typical private bill is used for relief in matters such as immigration and naturalization and claims against the United States. "

"A bill originating in the House of Representatives is designated by the letters "H.R." followed by a number that it retains throughout all its parliamentary stages. The letters signify "House of Representatives" and not, as is sometimes incorrectly assumed, "House resolution". "

"Public bills pertain to matters that affect the general public or classes of citizens, while private bills affect just certain individuals and organizations"

[Shoonra]

I suspect the original question arose because of some confusion over the method of numbering proposals in the US Congress.

A proposal designated (e.g.) "H.R. 25" means "House of Representatives Bill number Twenty-five." The "HR" means House of Representatives, not House Resolution. This is a VERY COMMON mistake, I've even seen lawyers - not the brightest ones - make this mistake.

You asked for references, so I scouted up a few: The US House of Representatives Manual, that recurring Congressional publication - How Our Laws Are Made, Congress A to Z published by Congressional Quarterly, and Introduction to United States Public Documents by Joe Morehead publ. by Libraries Unlimited.

With regard to the US Congress (some of this may also be useful for some state legislatures), each of the two chambers has four kinds of proposals: (1) Bills (2) Joint Resolutions (3) [simple] Resolutions, and (4) Concurrent Resolutions. In the numbering no special abbreviation is used for Bills (e.g. S. 25, H.R. 25), but the other forms have abbreviations (e.g., H.J.R., S. Res., H.Con.Res.).

What is commonly regarded as statute commences as either a Bill or a Joint Resolution (and it appears most Joint Resolutions are identified from the House, I can't remember the last time I saw a Senate Joint Resolution). Both forms go through the same hoops, including passage by both chambers and signature by the President (or re-passage over his veto). The distinctions between the two are blurred, but the Bill has an enacting clause and the Joint Resolution (and the simple and the Concurrent Resolution) has a resolving clause. Amendments to the Constitution are proposed by Joint Resolutions which must pass both chambers by 2/3 vote and are NOT sent to the President but directly to the states.
The "private bills" - which exist to make some specific accommodation for certain named persons (such as paying a claim otherwise denied to a particular person, or allowing a particular person some leeway in an immigration application, etc.) - are also designated as bills, but have a separate numbering system for private legislation. These supposedly affect only the person named and, while they are accessible in Statutes at Large, they never get included in the US Code and almost never mentioned in any legislation (one notable exception: In the late 1970s a private bill was enacted giving the Christian Science Church an prolonged copyright on its basic textbook. As this actually affected other people, by preventing them from printing the same book, it led to litigation which declared the private law invalid).

Concurrent resolutions and simple resolutions do not have the force of law, do not go to the President, and do not show up in the US Code. They usually deal with the internal operations of the Congress, or express an opinion without requiring any action. Concurrent Resolutions are approved by both chambers, simple resolutions by only one. For example, a decision to adjourn the chamber's business and resume at a certain date would be a resolution; if to adjourn both chambers the same would be a concurrent resolution. A "sense of the Congress" might be expressed in a resolution or concurrent resolution - but it would have no real legal weight.

I hope this helps.

[cdsea10]

i finally found one part of what i wanted... 'act of congress' defined 18usc...
TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Release date: 2005-08-03
TITLE 18 App. > FEDERAL > X. > Rule 54
Rule 54. Application and Exception Release date: 2003-2-6

(c) Application of Terms.
As used in these rules the following terms have the designated meanings. “Act of Congress” includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession.

and you have to use the supreme court case..."supreme Court opinion that has defined the word precisely. The decision of Montello Salt Company vs Utah [221 US 452], is a different court case that mentions that the word ‘including’ is not to be used as an expansive word to add other things not listed. "

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

[cut]

For example, the legislation that designates some date as National Pecan Pie Week is usually a Resolution. A proposal to amend the Constitution is usually a Joint Resolution.

When Congress speaks, in either one or both voices, and no one is there is hear,
Does Congress actually make a sound?

When someone says "pie" and no one brought the whipped cream,
does the price of pie fluctuate on the Open Market?

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by cdsea10

i finally found one part of what i wanted... 'act of congress' defined 18usc...
TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
TITLE 18 App. > FEDERAL > X. > Rule 54
Rule 54. Application and Exception

(c) Application of Terms.
As used in these rules the following terms have the designated meanings. “Act of Congress” includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession.

and you have to use the Supreme Court case..."Supreme Court opinion that has defined the word precisely. The decision of Montello Salt Company vs Utah [(1911) 221 US 452], is a different court case that mentions that the word ‘including’ is not to be used as an expansive word to add other things not listed."

-------

What used to be Fed Rule of Crim Proc 54 was moved to Rule 1 in 2002, and no longer offers a definition of Act of Congress and (apparently) no longer uses the word include or including.

However, the term include ordinarily means (if it is intended to have a different meaning you'd expect to see an explicit definition of include somewhere in the same statute or title or chapter) that the term begins with its common meaning, its usual coverage, either in common American usage or in a definition given elsewhere in the same body of law, and the word include has the effect of adding whatever it specifies. This meaning was discussed at length in the Montello Salt decision, which relied on the context of the entire statute to figure out what Congress meant when it gave the University of Utah an enormous acreage of public land "including all saline lands" -- it meant that the University took whatever saline land was in the original acreage and not adding saline land outside those boundaries.

But the same case discussed the very considerable legal authority for treating include as a term of expansion (by the way, the words in the message repeated above are not an exact quote from the decision). The Supreme Court generally rejected the notion that include was a term of limitation in several cases, such as Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co.(1941) 314 US 95 at 100; American Surety Co. v. Marotta (1933) 287 US 513 at 517; and Helvering v. Morgan's Inc. (1934) 293 US 121 at 125. The meaning upheld by the Helvering decision is still embodied in 26 USC sec 7701(c): "The terms includes and including, when used in a definition contained in this title, shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined."

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

But the same case discussed the very considerable legal authority for treating include as a term of expansion (by the way, the words in the message repeated above are not an exact quote from the decision). The Supreme Court generally rejected the notion that include was a term of limitation in several cases, such as Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co.(1941) 314 US 95 at 100; American Surety Co. v. Marotta (1933) 287 US 513 at 517; and Helvering v. Morgan's Inc. (1934) 293 US 121 at 125. The meaning upheld by the Helvering decision is still embodied in 26 USC sec 7701(c):

"The terms includes and including, when used in a definition contained in this title, shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined."

So, thus meaning that the court has efectively and stealthily changed a fundamental legal meaning (this
reminds me of scripture) which screws up the whole game!

right?

[cdsea10]

"We have seen that the state urges that the word 'and' is always employed to express the relation of addition, and it is said, with words of emphasis, that Congress cannot be supposed to have been ignorant of its meaning. The supreme court of the state also gave special significance to the use of 'and,' as adding something to that which preceded. The court also considered that the word 'including' was used as a word of enlargement, the learned court being of opinion that such was its ordinary sense. With this we cannot concur." is the direct quote from montello v utah 221us452 at 466.

this is stated again [as i read it] in Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, at 153:“In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen.”

thnaks for the link from rule 54 to the new one.