  |  | ||||
| |||||
        | |||||
Law or Resolution?
By:
Date:
| |||||||||||||||
| Law or Resolution? | | |||||||||||||
By: | | Robert | | ||||||||||||
Date: | | 06/17/2000 | | ||||||||||||
| | | | ||||||||||||
|
| |
The commonly understood legal meaning of three simple terms which will often appear when one is studying legislation. These three terms are: STATUTE. A formal written enactment of a legislative body, whether federal, state, city, or county. An act of the legislature declaring, commanding, or prohibiting something; a particular law enacted and established by the will of the legislative department of government; the written will of the legislature, solemnly expressed according to the forms necessary to constitute it the law of the state. Federal Trust Co. v. East Hartford Fire Dist., C.C.A.Conn, 383 F. 95, 98; Washington v. Dowling, 92 Fla. 601, 109 So. 588, 591." (taken from Black's Law Dict. 4th and 6th editions. Emphasis added.) BILL. Legislation. The draft of a proposed law from the time of its introduction in a legislative body through all the various stages in both houses. The form of a proposed law before it is enacted into law by vote of the legislative body. An "Act" is the appropriate term for it after it has been acted on by, and passed by, the legislature." (taken from Black's Law Dict. 4th and 6th editions. Emphasis added.) and, RESOLUTION. A formal expression of the opinion or will of an official body or a public assembly, adopted by vote; as a legislative resolution. Scudder v. Smith, 331 Pa. 165. Such may be either a simple, joint, or concurrent resolution. The term is usually employed to denote the adoption of a motion, the subject-matter of which would not properly constitute a statute, such as a mere expression of opinion; an alteration of the rules; a vote of thanks or of censure, etc. McDowell v. People, 68 N.E. 379, 204 Illinois 499; Conley v. Texas Division of United Daughters of the Confederacy, Tex.Civ.App., 164 S.W. 24, 26. Such is not law but merely a form in which a legislative body expresses an opinion. Baker v. City of Milwaukee, 271 Or. 500, 533 P.2d 772, 775. The chief distinction between a "resolution" and a "law" is that the former is used whenever the legislative body passing it wishes merely to express an opinion as to some given matter or thing and is only to have a temporary effect on such particular thing, while by a "law" it is intended to permanently direct and control matters applying to persons or things in general. Ex parte Hague, 104 N.J.Eq. 31." (taken from Black's Law Dict. 4th and 6th editions. Emphasis added.) Thus "Resolutions", are not "Bills", and no matter however or whenever passed "Resolutions" are neither "Statutes" nor "Law" according to Black's Law Dict. Resolutions are only non-binding opinions of some unknown number of members of some legislative body, presumed to be more than half of that body who were present or required to be present for the vote. All the electors of the members of the legislative body are presumed to agree with or ratify such opinions or Resolutions. Such opinions or Resolutions are a statement of the mere non-binding Public Policy or opinion of those who do not object or openly refuse to ratify such policy. My associate Tarheel and I have this week diligently studied the Statutes at Large documents of the United States of America. We can provide verified Tiff file images and OCR text files of all the revenues and income tax measures of congress from 1862 to date (and any other acts of congress too, for that matter) to anyone who would like to confirm our findings or retain their own copy. See the ARPLA web page for more details. We certify and believe the following to be true based on our own personal study: Every currently known volume of the Statutes at Large from 1894 which contains any individual income tax measure specifies on its fly page that such volume contains "Recent Treaties, Conventions, and Executive Proclamations", or "Concurrent Resolutions of the two houses of Congress, and Recent Treaties, Conventions, And Executive Proclamations". According to the official text of the Statute at Large of the United States of America in congress assembled, we can find no known "Bill", "Act" or "Statute" relating to individual income taxation which has ever been passed from 1894 through the current day so as to be now an "Act", "Law" or "Statute" according to the usual meaning of those terms as expressed in Black's 4th and 6th Law Dictionary above, but all such income tax measures are denoted in the Statutes at Large by the terms "H.R." meaning "House Resolution", thus making them "public policy" or "opinion", but not "Law" or "Acts" binding on any man or woman. If anyone has any infomation to indicate that we are wrong in any on this issue or can explain how congress uses these terms differently from the system explained in Black's Law Dict. please let us know. Does anyone have any evidence that my analysis above is not completely correct or that Congress has any authority whatsoever to make any mandatory "Law", "Act", or "Statute" by means of a "Resolution"? Comments, corrections, and contributions welcomed. | | | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
