Because I’ve seen both in legal decisions and whatnot, and both seem to be referring to US federal law.
The US Code organizes public laws (which represent specific bills enacted by the legislature and are identified chronologically) into appropriate topic headings. For example, all banking statutes would be collected in the same place. Also, as a particular
public law might be amended by a series of later enactments, the US Code will show the current state of the law, with all of the deletions and additions required by the later enactments.
Codification, is the simplest answer.
Public Laws are numbered by the Congress and the order of passage, so that PL 101-6 might authorize payment of a given judgment in the U.S. Court of Claims, PL 101-7 might amend the definition of breach of copyright to include new forms of computer files, and PL 101-8 might propose an amendment to the Constitution to the states. (All three definitions are pulled directly from my trusty generator of hypothetical examples, and are not to be relied on as what those particular public laws are.)
The U.S. Code, on the other hand, is broken down carefully into such things as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the federal penal law, federal environmental law, the Bankruptcy Code, etc., on a subject-matter basis. So a public law that works a change in the statute law of the nation is written to amend the U.S. Code by adding, deleting, amending, or rewriting a section or sections of it, which are specified in the text of the public law. The particular volume of the U.S. Code which is changed gets pocket parts detailing the changes, and eventually is reprinted with the revised code text in place.
The “U.S. Code” is federal stautory law–i.e., the laws enacted by Congress. (Much of what is "federal law is not strictly statuatory at all, but rather court-made law, or common law. Federal court decisions, however, are often interpretive of statutes; that which is not is generally constitutional law.)
“Public law” is a label most commonly used to distinguish laws that govern public affairs from the legal affairs of private parties. Examples of the former include criminal law and most of the sexiest constitutional law issues of the day (1st Amendment, etc); the latter wouod include much of commercial law, as well as domestic relations and wills and estates. There is, obviously, a great deal of overlap between these two area (e.g, “consumer protection”). This distinction was a good deal more pronounced 70 years or so ago; today it is a distinction that few, other than curriculum writers, attempt to draw. So-called “public” and “private” law are both statutory and common. Most federal law, I think it’s safe to say, is “public,” “private law” generally being something that is governed by the states. There are, of course, arguable exceptions: Trademark law is federal, and pretty “private” in its immediate effects. But I think it just points up the artificiality of trying to drawn the distinction, as almost every law – no matter how private it seems (e.g., law governing adoption) – is informed by public policy concerns.
Ah yes. The “Public law” designation is also a citation form for congressional enactments; thereafter, they aremore commonly cited in the following manner ___ (title) U.S.C. (stands for United States Code) section ____ (number within title).
“Public Law” can include a lot of Federal legislation that isn’t in US Code. I think that the joint resolution that bourbon can only be made in the USA (at least according to US law) is part of “Public Law” but it’s not in US Code.
Not to mention all administrative law–which is often quite “public,” yet not statutory, strictly-speaking, and certainly not in the US Code (although that is where you’ll find the enabling legislation for almost every administrative regulation).
- perhaps off topic*
If I get a ticket for say, smoking on the train platform, the worst chicago can do is run my info, make me go to court, give me the minimum fine. fifty bucks. Same for drinking a beer on the street, unless I am publicly intoxicated (open to opinion…)
Question is, It is an ordinance. Local crap. Seems all they can do is sic a bill collector on me. This seems like public law. Which in my situation is bullshit. i.e. they cannot sentence me to jail. or am I mistaken?
You’re mistaking two different uses of a term here.
Kind of like the question, is a Tasmanian Devil a carnivore? Well, it’s definitely a meat-eating animal, so yeah, it’s a carnivore. But it’s a Marsupial, not a Carnivore (member of Order Carnivora, descended from the miacids and including cats, dogs, raccoons, bears, hyenas, etc.).
“Public law” (lowercase) refers to the body of law dealing with relationships between citizen and government, as opposed to private law governing relationships between citizens. Both include constitution, statute law, administrative regulations, advisory opinions, case law, and Blackstone alone knows what else. (Though probably the only piece of private law in the Constitution is the Seventh Amendment.)
“Public Law” (initial capitals) is the term used to describe an Act of Congress as enacted by vote and signed into law by the President, and the acts of each Congress are sequentially numbered for reference to same. The same law may be PL 83-12 and Title 4 U.S. Code Section 308 paragraph 7. (Cites arbitrary and drawn directly from my behind, not to be relied on.) One refers to the fact that the 83rd Congress passed it as the twelvth measure to be enacted into law by that Congress; the other refers to its regulation of the interstate transportation of raw rutabagas as part of our agricultural statutes in that Title.