What is an “Act” in the context of a bill passed by the legislature?
In a discussion, it was asserted to me that no one actually is convicted of violating say the DMCA, because it is an “Act” rather than a “Law”. And, thus, somehow the Act didn’t have the same legal force as a “Law”, and the conviction was on some other terms (I wasn’t clear on what terms.)
There was also an assertion that bills take a different path through the legislative process if they are “Acts” or “Laws”.
My understanding is that “Act” is a more non-specific term that encompasses one or more pieces of legislation, which may be laws (or non-laws like a proclamation of Cool Internet Posters from Japan Day or whatever.) So an “Act” may add, remove or modify one or more laws, and one could indeed be convicted of “breaking the law” by violating an appropriate section of an Act.
I’m not an expert (as I will no doubt proceed to demonstrate), but Acts of Congress are generally somewhat broad, and specify that certain governmental entities will enact laws and regulations consistent with the Act to implement and enforce the Act’s provisions.
You are right to be skeptical of the information you got; it is hard to imagine how it could be any more wrong.
Calling something an “Act,” or rather, as it is more commonly encountered, “The XYZ Act,” is more than anything else an exercise in PR. It gives politicians and the press a more elegant way to refer to a bill–and following its passage in both houses of Congress and signature by the President (or a veto override), a law–than say “S. 308” (a bill originated in the Senate) or “Public Law 110-244” (a law).
There are no requirements to qualify for being called an act. Typically, the first section of the legislation will be the “Short Title” section and it is here where the law’s name will be promulgated. An act is a law, and a law is an enactment; acts that impose criminal penalties for violation of their terms are real-deal criminal laws just like any other you might care to imagine.
In the American system, “law” is a general term that covers all kinds of sources of legal authority. To put it very simply, generally speaking, there are three sources of law: legislative, executive, and judicial. (Administrative law is usually considered executive, but sometimes it’s classified as a separate fourth source of law.)
Each kind of law has associated terminology
Legislative: Statute, code, act, bylaw, ordinance
Executive: Regulation, rule, administrative law
Judicial: Common law, decisional law, judge-made law, black-letter law, precedential law, case law
All of this is law.
“Act” is simply a word that indicates that a statute.
This is errant nonsense.
No. The legislature has only one way of making law.
Not quite. An “act” is a statute and a statute is a law. There are other things that legislatures can do, such as proclamations.
Are resolutions acts of Congress? IOW, in the language of the resolution, does it refer to itself as an act? I did notice that the Brady Bill was referred to as the Brady Act once it became law, but I don’t know if that is technically correct or not.
Resolutions are usually merely termed “resolutions.” – “This house resolves that …”
What do you mean by “technically” correct? A bill is legislation that hasn’t been enacted. So once it’s enacted, it can’t be a bill any more, but it can be any of the other things: Brady Act, Brady Law, Brady Statute, Brady Code. It doesn’t really make a difference. “Act” is simply the most common way to do it.
A joint resolution can be a law, but it is usually not called an act.
I’m not familiar with DMCA, but I have a guess what your friend is referring to. Is it possible that DMCA is an act/law that provides for civil liability for certain behavior, but perhaps it does not apply criminal sanctions to those behaviors? As in, if someone illegally copies a DVD, perhaps the act provides that they may be sued, but does not provide that they may be thrown in jail. If so, perhaps your friend wrongly believes that only laws provide for criminal penalties, but acts do not.
Here, at any rate, an Act may well allow the Minister to make regulations which have the force of a law.
Frequently an Act will not come into force until the Minister signs a Statutory Instrument known as a Commencement Order.
It’s a single Minister who can bring an Act into force in the UK? here in Canada, only the Cabinet has that power. I suppose there’s nothing stopping a bill from delegating that power to a single Minister, but I can’t recall an example.
Just to clarify what I’m saying here: In American law, these terms are 100 percent interchangeable. There is no legal consequence for terming it the “Brady Act” instead of the “Brady Law.” They mean exactly the same thing.
As ascenray and Kimmy have said, what you were told is completely wrong.
The way we get new federal laws in the U.S. (federal = nataional, as opposed to those laws passed in one of the states) is that Congress passes, and the president signs, a piece of legislation. Before passage, legislation is usually called a Bill. Once it’s passed and signed, it’s typically called an Act. But an Act is just a formal way of referring to a law. (There are some technical ways in which things passed by Congress but not signed by the president can become law as well, which we can ignore for this discussion. But those laws have exactly the same force as laws enacted in the usual way.)
Federal legislation is not usually referred to formally as a “Law.” Possibly there are some pieces of legislation referred to as “Laws,” but it would be rare. Usually, they’ll be called Acts. Sometimes they’re called Joint Resolutions, which is confusing because there are other types of “resolutions” (such as the Concurrent Resolutions) which aren’t laws.
One possible source of confusion is that the formal name for most legislation is written when it’s still pending – so, for instance, there’s some potential legislation right now called “The Employee Free Choice Act.” It’s not law yet, and may never be law. But we call it the Employee Free Choice Act because that will be its formal name if it does someday become law.
As I note above, resolutions are tough because they come in several varieties. House Resolutions and Senate Resolutions are just proclamations that the bodies make; they have no force of law. Concurrent Resoultions are passed by both Chambers, but they too have no force of law. OTOH, Joint Resolutions are passed by both Chambers and signed by the president. As such, they are laws exactly like any other.
Exactly why you’d choose the form of a Joint Res. vs. an Act for your new piece of legislation is a technical matter of procedure that doesn’t need to be understood (and isn’t) by anyone not working on Capitol Hill. But if you want your thing to be a law, as opposed to just a talking point, it has to be passed by both Chambers and signed by the president. And if it is passed by both Chambers and signed by the president, it is a law no matter what it’s called.
N.B. In these posts I’ve said things have to be signed by the president. For the sake of clarity I’m eliding that the real requirement is that the thing has to be presented to the president. Once it’s presented, a Bill becomes a law either by the president’s signature, by sitting on his desk unmolested for 10 days while Congress is still in session, or by being vetoed by the president and then repassed by a 2/3ds majority in each Chamber. Whichever of these three methods makes the legislation into a law, the effect is identical. And the document is not a law until and unless one of these three things happens.
