Digital Commons Network^™

How Far Out Of Step Is The Supreme Court Of The United States?, Brian Christopher Jones

Brian Christopher Jones

Don’T Be Silly: Lawmakers “Rarely” Read Legislation And Oftentimes Don’T Understand It . . . But That’S Okay, Brian Christopher Jones

Brian Christopher Jones

During the debate over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), the reading and understanding of legislation became one of the most controversial issues mentioned in Congress and throughout the media. This led many to state that lawmakers should “read the bill,” and led one academic to propose a read-the-bill rule for Congress, where legislators would not vote or vote “no” if they had not read the full text of the legislation. My essay argues that in contemporary legislatures such proposals are unfeasible, and would ultimately produce lower quality legislation. In doing so, the piece uses interviews with legislative …

Processes, Standards And Politics: Drafting Short Titles In The Westminster Parliament, Scottish Parliament, And U.S. Congress, Brian Christopher Jones

Brian Christopher Jones

Investigating the similarities and differences between the US Congress, Westminster Parliament and Scottish Parliament in regard to short titles of Bills and Acts, this article finds there to be a significant divide between Congress and the UK institutions in regard to both the content included in titles and the methods by which they are drafted. Though the three institutions provide recognized points of comparison, it demonstrates that Congress is severely out-of-step with their transatlantic neighbors. The roles of drafters, legislators, House Authorities, drafting guidelines and some constitutional/legislative processes issues that vary between the lawmaking bodies are examined in order to …

Transatlantic Perspectives On Humanised Public Law Campaigns: Personalising And Depersonalising The Legislative Process, Brian Christopher Jones

Brian Christopher Jones

This exploratory article uses interviews from lawmakers, government officials, bill drafters and parliamentary journalists from Westminster, the Scottish Parliament and the United States Congress to determine humanised law campaigns potential impact on the legislative process. It hypothesised that emotional law is prevented through the depersonalisation of such statutory or regulatory instruments, and that more United Kingdom and Scottish interviewees would embrace this perspective than United States interviewees. Humanised campaigns and personalised statutory law in the United States Congress appears to be on the rise. In Britain such campaigns are a rarity, yet over the past few years the Sarah's Law …