Talk:List of United States federal legislation

message: Why is the Wade-Davis Bill listed? It failed. 69.19.2.225 08:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wade-Davis

message: Is there any real difference between "Acts of Congress" and "Legislation?" Do we need separate lists? (this page has both). -Anthropos 07:00, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: There should only be one list. dml 13:55, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Acts of Congress vs. legislation

message: Any point in making a category version of this page, so new law entries can be added automatically?  --Calton 06:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: I've compiled a list of "major" federal acts from the table of legislation in Major Acts of Congress, Brian K. Landsberg (ed), ISBN: 0028657497. Many are already in here, and many others need articles written. I'll be able to work on it when I get back from the Bar exam, in about a week. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 16:31, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
*Update = project done. BD2412 T 16:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 
User:BD2412/Federal legislation


message: I've added the new infobox to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act page. Feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks! --Saucy Intruder 01:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Federal Legislation Infobox

message: It's 68 kb now - I propose splitting it in three, with one article covering up to the 50th Congress, a second to the 100th, and the third everything after. Thoughts? bd2412 T 01:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Divide the page?

message: This is a list of legislation which I've removed from the article because they were either minor or redlinked.  Feel free to restore them or delete them from here. —Markles 21:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor legislation

message: Markles, I respectfully submit that your notion that Constitutional Amendments aren't legislation is misguided and incorrect.  The American Heritage Dictionary defines "legislation" as "1. The act or process of legislating; lawmaking.  2. A proposed or enacted law or group of laws."  Definition one applies to the amendment approval and subsequent ratification process, while definition two most definitely applies to amendments themselves, given that the Constitution itself explicitly states that it is the "supreme law of the land". Groupthink 21:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Amendments and legislation

message: Does anyone know how to find more info about a piece of legislation? I have (32 Stat. at L. 1222, chap. 1012, § 39, sec. 32) as a starter, and it's been referred to as the "Anarchist Exclusion Act" several times. It was passed on the last day of the 57th Congress (March 3, 1903). Are there sources for finding more details about a piece?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murderbike (talk • contribs) 07:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, I've got the article going in my sandbox, was probably gonna finish it today. I'll just paste into that spot. Thanks! Murderbike (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarchist Exclusion Act

message: Why is this list not complete?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't think you're up to the task, do you mind if I give it a go?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there's well over 100,000 status that have passed since congress was created and most likely more. Since this would make list unmanageable. This being said, there are probably some major ones that are not on the list that should be. Maybe work on those --Patrick (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Standards for inclusion are important to establish before we invest a significant amount of time such a project as this will require. I will concede that (for now) it would be ok to exclude private acts that don't have a lot of relevance to the law today and would only be notable as historically interesting tid-bits. (It is my contention that all acts of Congress passed into law would fulfill notability requirements). However, I think all public acts at least deserve a mention. I also think that this should be looked at as a long term project akin to the List of United States Supreme Court cases, that although there may be a large number of red links now, over the next few decades perhaps, each of these links will be developed because each is an important part of American History. I am especially surprised that links have actually been removed from this list in the past just because there is not yet an article on the Act. Redlinks are invitations for editors to increase their edit counts and should not be feared. If there are 100,000 individual Acts, obviously, the list will need to be split apart (it's on the long side already). I would suggest that the list be split by year for clarity's sake.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the list should be a lot more inclusive, and I agree that the list should be split (the Supreme Court splits are a good model) both by year and by subject matter (yes, a huge amount of work, but worth it in the end, I expect). Also, as for red links, there are some public acts passed by Congress that will never merit an individual article. These, I think, should generally redirect to more general articles discussing U.S. law on that subject matter. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This list should be complete

message: Let's NOT just download the entire THOMAS database, or some such thing.  Let's develop standards for inclusion.—Markles 12:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Standards for inclusion are important to establish before we invest a significant amount of time such a project as this will require. I will concede that (for now) it would be ok to exclude private acts that don't have a lot of relevance to the law today and would only be notable as historically interesting tid-bits. (It is my contention that all acts of Congress passed into law would fulfill notability requirements). However, I think all public acts at least deserve a mention. I also think that this should be looked at as a long term project akin to the List of United States Supreme Court cases, that although there may be a large number of red links now, over the next few decades perhaps, each of these links will be developed because each is an important part of American History. I am especially surprised that links have actually been removed from this list in the past just because there is not yet an article on the Act. Redlinks are invitations for editors to increase their edit counts and should not be feared. If there are 100,000 individual Acts, obviously, the list will need to be split apart (it's on the long side already). I would suggest that the list be split by year for clarity's sake.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the list should be a lot more inclusive, and I agree that the list should be split (the Supreme Court splits are a good model) both by year and by subject matter (yes, a huge amount of work, but worth it in the end, I expect). Also, as for red links, there are some public acts passed by Congress that will never merit an individual article. These, I think, should generally redirect to more general articles discussing U.S. law on that subject matter. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Standards for inclusion

message: Does anyone have any information about the above US legislation - I imagine it must be federal because I believe it applies to all US military craft anywhere in the world Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I am working on a piece of UK law Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 and wanted to make references to laws of other nations.  Viv Hamilton (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sunken Military Craft Act 2004

message: I'm surprised there's no mention of codified law here, or apparently elsewhere in Wikipedia. Granted the emphasis here is on the individual laws, but codification is part of the law making process.
--Bill Harshaw (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there are numerous mention of codification in Wikipedia.  See United States Code, Act of Congress, Code of Federal Regulations, codification (also redirected from codified law, etc.  This is simply a list of federal legislation.  Look at the bottom of the page and you will also find categories of articles about law and legislation that can help you out.   Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S.Code

message: i.e. change "partial list of notable..." to "list of notable..." ?
I understand the desire not to mislead people into thinking the list is somehow comprehensive.  But when I was a new Wikipedian (a few months ago), that label misled me (and perhaps still misleads others) into thinking that there is some criterion other than notability for something to be on this list.  Also, revisions were made to the lead to the last two weeks which moved the statistics on the # of existing bills closer to the beginning.
(By the way, at some point are we going to create a separate comprehensive list of Public Laws organized by Congress, much like the Supreme Court people use for Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume?)
Agradman talk/contribs 19:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: can we remove "partial" from the lead?

message: The criteria for notability of items in this list is unclear to me.  Should the above (Naval Act of 1916) be in this list?  It was notable in terms of the USN's buildup prior to WWI.  Rwessel (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Naval Appropriations Act of 1916

message: What dates are used, when Congress passed the bill or when it was enacted? Int21h (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates

message: I keep reading about the Child Soldiers Prevention Act that affects US aid to foreign countries who actively recruit child soldiers, the one in the news today because the current administration issued a waiver for four nations. It is variously credited to 2007 & 2008, but it isn't listed here & there's no Wikipedia article on it. Can anyone help? wbm (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2007-2008

message: What the restored TOC would look like:
Contents:
Publication of the law
Statutes at Large
Sessions and Chapters
Public Laws
Examples
----
Continental Congress
Years: Congress number
1789–1801: 1 2 3 4 5 6
1801–1811: 7 8 9 10 11
1811–1821: 12 13 14 15 16
1821–1831: 17 18 19 20 21
1831–1841: 22 23 24 25 26
1841–1851: 27 28 29 30 31
1851–1861: 32 33 34 35 36
1861–1871: 37 38 39 40 41
1871–1881: 42 43 44 45 46
1881–1891: 47 48 49 50 51
1891–1901: 52 53 54 55 56
1901–1911: 57 58 59 60 61
1911–1921: 62 63 64 65 66
1921–1931: 67 68 69 70 71
1931–1941: 72 73 74 75 76
1941–1951: 77 78 79 80 81
1951–1961: 82 83 84 85 86
1961–1971: 87 88 89 90 91
1971–1981: 92 93 94 95 96
1981–1991: 97 98 99 100 101
1991–2001: 102 103 104 105 106
2001–present: 107 108 109 110 111
See also
Sources
It's been three years since this article split/forked the centuries out into subpages:
* List of United States federal legislation,
* List of United States federal legislation, 1789–1901,
* List of United States federal legislation, 1901–2001, and
* List of United States federal legislation, 2001–present.
I suggest we merge them back into one article.  There's little benefit to having four articles when one will do.  The pages have not grown much since the split, or at least enough to justify a concern that one combined page would become too unwieldy.
The last two Congresses (so far) have also split their lists because they are complete lists of statutes, not merely selected blue links (Acts of the 112th United States Congress and Acts of the 113th United States Congress).  These would not change in this proposal.
—GoldRingChip 18:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Acts of Congress easily satisfy LISTN. Primary legislation is unlikely to be non-notable. Legislation is never trivial. Even if it is preposterous and pointless, it is still important for being a scandal. A list of notable Acts would violate WP:CIRCULAR. A complete list would not be too long. Wikipedia is NOTPAPER, so there is no limit on the length of lists, because we can spin off as many daughter lists as we like. Confining lists to notable entries would probably kill the project. That sort of thing is the reason for the problems we have with editor retention. James500 (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Are you discussing a possible hybrid list? Separate pages for the "Acts of Congress XXX" with only a selection of notable articles/acts listed here? So the other pages would have every public law from that congress, while this one would have "Main article X" and then a short list of notable items? The problem with that (and maybe I'm just knocking down my own idea) is that it would take a lot of time to select which bills were notable AND editors not part of this discussion would no doubt add their own items later. On the other hand, both the 110th and 111th Congress pages have existing lists of notable legislation. Clearly other people are already making decisions about what the major legislation from a congress is. We could work up a set of criteria, explain it clearly on the talk page, and then choose to be inclusive rather than exclusive when it came to other people adding stuff (so as to be friendly to other people who want to contribute). Off the top of my head, appropriations legislation, the yearly National Defense Authorization Acts, farm bills from every five years, legislation authorizing wars, and major policy changes (like Obamacare, No Child Left Behind) would all be notable. I'm not voting for this per se, but I don't think it would be impossible to do. Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned there are already some articles of the form Acts of the nnnth United States Congress (see for example Acts of the 111th United States Congress).  There is also wikisource::Portal:Acts_of_the_United_States_Congresses.  Rwessel (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

text: I agree with James500 that we shouldn't tinker too much here before we have other lists in place. I'd hate to remove content, even incomplete content, before we had replaced it. I also wouldn't consider the Wikisource portal as a possible replacement for doing this here. (That may not be what you are suggesting). The wikisource page for the 113th (current) Congress only has one public law on it (wikisource::Portal:Acts of the United States Congresses/Acts of the 113th United States Congress). HistoricMN44 (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: @GoldRingChip 41.115.66.178 (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposed