Exploring The Repeal Of Codified Laws: Possibility And Process

The process of repealing a codified law involves passing new legislation that specifically overturns or repeals the existing ordinance. Repealing a codified law is possible, and the process can vary depending on the jurisdiction and type of law in question. In the United States, Congress must pass a new law containing repeal language and the codified statute's location in the U.S. Code. Once a statute is repealed, its text is deleted from the Code and replaced by a note summarizing its content. This process is known as an express repeal. An implied repeal occurs when two statutes are mutually inconsistent, resulting in the later statute replacing the earlier one.

Repealing a codified law requires passing new legislation

The process of repealing a codified law involves deleting the text of the statute from the Code and replacing it with a note summarizing its previous contents. This deletion removes the force of law from the repealed statute. All repeals of parts of the U.S. Code are express repeals, meaning that the new law specifically overturns or repeals the existing ordinance.

There are two types of repeals: with or without savings. A repeal without savings eliminates the repealed statute entirely. On the other hand, a repeal with savings maintains the impact of the repealed statute for specific purposes, such as preserving rights granted under its authority or preventing the reversal of any repeals it contained. In England and Wales, the Interpretation Act 1978 outlines general savings for all repeals, reenacting provisions from the Interpretation Act 1889.

A common scenario for repealing and reenacting a law is when the legislation in a particular area needs to be updated. The reenactment can include amendments or be without amendment, typically seen in consolidation bills. For instance, the repeal of the Poor Laws in England in 1948 reflected their replacement by contemporary social welfare legislation. On the other hand, a repeal without replacement occurs when a law is ineffective or has more negative consequences than initially anticipated.

Repeal language and the codified statute's location in the U.S. Code

The United States Code (formally The Code of Laws of the United States of America) is the official codification of the general and permanent federal statutes of the United States. It contains 53 or 54 titles, which are organized into numbered sections. The U.S. Code is published by the U.S. House of Representatives' Office of the Law Revision Counsel (LRC).

When a law is repealed, its text is deleted from the Code and replaced by a note summarizing what used to be there. The repealed statute no longer holds any legal power. There are two basic types of repeal: a repeal with a re-enactment, and a repeal without replacement. The former is used to replace the law with an updated, amended, or otherwise related law, while the latter aims to abolish its provisions altogether.

There are several ways to determine where a law is codified in the U.S. Code. One way is to look it up by its popular name (e.g., Balanced Budget Act of 1997 or Civil Rights Act of 1964) in popular name tables found in publications such as the U.S. Code and U.S. Code Annotated Popular Name Table. Another way is through Public Law Number Access, where cross-references to where particular sections of a law are codified can be found in the margins of the public law. Additionally, the U.S. Code provides a table listing public law numbers in chronological order, indicating where each section of the law is codified.

Implied repeal occurs when two statutes are mutually inconsistent

Yes, codified laws can be repealed. The process of repeal typically involves passing new legislation that specifically overturns or repeals the existing ordinance. The process can vary depending on the jurisdiction and type of law in question.

One form that the repeal of codified law can take is that of implied repeal. Implied repeal occurs when two statutes are mutually inconsistent. This doctrine of implied repeal is a concept in constitutional theory which states that where an Act of Parliament or an Act of Congress (or of some other legislature) conflicts with an earlier one, the latter Act takes precedence and the conflicting parts of the earlier Act become legally inoperable. This doctrine is expressed in the Latin phrase "leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant" or "lex posterior derogat priori".

Implied repeal is to be contrasted with the express repeal of legislation by the legislative body. In Canadian law, it is possible for a law to be protected from implied repeal by way of a "primacy clause" which states that the act in question supersedes all other statutes until it is specifically repealed. Acts with such primacy clauses are called quasi-constitutional. In the 2002 English case Thoburn v Sunderland City Council (the so-called "Metric Martyrs" case), Lord Justice Laws held the view that the Parliament Acts and the Human Rights Act are "constitutional statutes" and may not be subject to the doctrine of implied repeal. A decade later, in 2012, in a case before the United Kingdom Supreme Court, BH v The Lord Advocate (Scotland), Lord Hope held that "the Scotland Act can only be expressly repealed; it cannot be impliedly repealed; that is because of its 'fundamental constitutional nature'". Under United States law, "implied repeal" is a disfavored doctrine.

Partial repeal: when a specified provision of a previous Act is repealed

A codified law can be repealed, and a repeal can take several forms. One such form is a partial repeal, which occurs when a specified provision of a previous Act is repealed while other provisions remain in force. An example of a partial repeal is the Acts of Union 1800, which provided for the union of Great Britain and Ireland as the United Kingdom. This act was partially repealed in 1922 when, as a result of the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty, twenty-six of the thirty-two counties of Ireland became the Irish Free State and ceased to be part of the United Kingdom.

A partial repeal can occur when a law needs to be updated but only specific provisions are outdated or obsolete. In such cases, the outdated provisions are repealed and replaced with new provisions suitable for the modern era. This is done through the enactment of a new statute that expressly states that the specified provisions of the earlier statute are of no effect. For example, the Companies Act, 2013 repealed the Companies Act 1956, and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 repealed the previous Criminal Procedure Code.

A partial repeal can also occur when there is an inconsistency between a subsequent statute and an earlier statute. In such cases, one of the statutes may be partially repealed to resolve the inconsistency. The burden of proof lies with the person asserting the implication of repeal, and the new statute must show a clear intention to repeal the earlier statute or be inconsistent with its provisions.

The process of repealing a codified law can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the type of law in question. In some cases, a motion to repeal may require a two-thirds vote, a majority vote with prior notice, or a vote by a majority of the entire membership. Additionally, a partial repeal may be subject to savings provisions, which preserve the effect of the repealed statute for limited purposes, such as retaining rights granted under its authority.

Repeal without replacement: when a law is no longer effective

Repeal without replacement, also known as a repeal without savings, is a type of repeal that eliminates the repealed statute completely. This means that the provisions of the law are abolished altogether. A repeal without replacement is generally carried out when a law is no longer effective, or it is shown that a law is having far more negative consequences than were originally envisioned or intended.

In the context of common law in England and Wales, the effect of repealing a statute was historically "to obliterate it completely from the records of Parliament as though it had never been passed." However, this is now subject to savings provisions within the Interpretation Act 1978. Sections 15 to 17 and 19(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978 set out general savings for all repeals, re-enacting similar provisions from the Interpretation Act 1889. Before 1953, all Statute Law Revision Acts contained a different general savings provision known as the Westbury saving, which is no longer in use.

A repeal without replacement can be contrasted with a repeal with a re-enactment, which is used to replace the law with an updated, amended, or otherwise related law. A typical situation where an Act is repealed and re-enacted is when the law in the area is being updated but the law being repealed needs to be replaced with one suitable for the modern era. For example, the repeal of the Poor Laws in England in 1948 reflected their replacement by modern social welfare legislation.

Major examples of repeals without replacement include The Corn Laws in England, repealed in 1846 after a passionate campaign, and the Repeal of Prohibition in the United States. Enacted by the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the prohibition of alcoholic beverages was repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment. This is the only constitutional amendment to have ever been repealed in the United States.

Frequently asked questions