Implied Repeal

2 Key excerpts on "Implied Repeal"

• 

  eBook - PDF

  Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Human Rights Act

  • Alison L Young(Author)
  • 2008(Publication Date)
  • Hart Publishing

    (Publisher)

  Rather, they are best understood as a recognition that the doctrine only applies when a court is faced with two statu-tory provisions in different statutes that cannot stand together. It is not possible for the court to interpret the later statute in the light of the earlier statute. Consequently, the provisions of the later statute impliedly repeal the provisions of the earlier statute. E. Specific Repeal The doctrine of Implied Repeal is narrower in scope than it first appears. There is a general presumption against Implied Repeal. The doctrine is best understood not as a rule, but as an exception. In most cases of apparent conflict, courts will interpret a later statute so as not to contradict an earlier statute, thus occasion-ally it may appear as if the will of an earlier Parliament prevailed over than of a later Parliament. The principle of generalia specialibus non derogant ensures that later, general, provisions of legislation do not impliedly repeal earlier, more specific, legislation. Later specific legislation is not interpreted as impliedly repealing more general, earlier provisions of legislation. Instead, the later legis-lation will be interpreted as a new exception to the earlier more general provi-sion. The presumption against Implied Repeal operates most strongly when applied to constitutional statutes. Only specific or express words of Parliament will suffice to overturn the presumption that the later statute can be read so as not to contradict an earlier constitutional statute. Our examination of the scope of the doctrine of Implied Repeal has also revealed the close connection between interpretation and Implied Repeal. Implied Repeal only applies when it is not The Narrow Scope of Implied Repeal 49 56 [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin), [2003] QB 151, [37]. possible for later statutory provisions to be interpreted so as not to specifically contradict earlier statutory provisions.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Congress in Reverse

  Repeals from Reconstruction to the Present

  • Jordan M. Ragusa, Nathaniel A. Birkhead(Authors)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • University of Chicago Press

    (Publisher)

  First, by relying on the judgment of experts, it is easier to isolate substantively important changes in the nation’s laws and ignore mundane or technical statutory revisions. Second, researchers can be sure that the action was consistent with the concept of a repeal as an effort to “nullify,” “annul,” or “undo” a previously enacted law. And third, because the unit of analysis is a law rather than a tiny portion of a law, it is possible to identify covariates at the same measurement level including characteristics of the roll-call vote, the sponsor of the law, etc. An obvious downside is that we lack objective criteria for what makes a given repeal notable, significant, important, etc. We note, however, that this approach is consistent with how legislative scholars have typically measured legislative productivity. For example, in 1991 David Mayhew challenged researchers to move beyond simple law counts in their analyses of legislative productivity and focus instead on the handful of substantively important laws enacted during a legislative session. 3 Legislatively, repeals may occur in several ways, including through bills that directly target prior laws, as a rider in a bill with other statutory content, or as one element in a broader set of reform efforts. As an example of a law expressly targeting a prior law, consider the Neutrality Act of 1939—establishing the direction of American foreign policy during the build-up to World War II—which included specific language that repealed the arms embargo passed in the Neutrality Act of 1937. By contrast, the “Risk Rule” statute—which the Pentagon had utilized in an attempt to prevent women from serving on combat ships or aircraft—was repealed as one element of the much larger National Defense Authorization Act of 1994. Lastly, in the case of welfare reform in the 1990s, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) repealed and replaced the AFDC program by amending the Social Security Act enacted in 1935

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book