Talk:United States Code
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Objectivity
The section titled "Parts of Interest" is not organized in the manner of a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, the recently added text in that section labelled "How Can a Non-Law Become Law Anyway?" should be reworded to make it less like an item from a newspaper editorial/opinion section and more like a proper encyclopedia article. Instead of using phrases like "we peons" and "so-called justice" in the last paragraph, it would be preferable to cite examples of this controversy in court cases, newspapers, TV or radio media, or other forms of public discourse. Otherwise, the text appears to be the personal opinion and judgement of an anonymous author. (17:50 GMT, 7 January 2005)
[edit] I concur, I've reverted it out, here's why
Okay, I got rid of that POV mess that was inserted by some anonymous bozo.
Here's why:
(1) Overwhelmingly biased and POV (2) Included too much irrelevant junk that should go into the Law of the United States article, if it deserves to be in Wikipedia at all. An article titled "United States Code" should be about the U.S.C., not the entire system of federal statutory and regulatory law.
I suspect the text was inserted not by an attorney, but by some ordinary layperson who has gotten dragged into the legal system through some dispute and has only a weak understanding of how federal law works.
--Coolcaesar 01:43, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- "some ordinary layperson". do they dip you guild boys in some sort of magical arrogance potion when they hand you your license to ill? it's a disease, apparently. SaltyPig 16:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wiki Code ?
It certainly would be a large effort, but would it be appropriate to try to place the United States Code into the Wikipedia? Wikipedia would likely be able to keep the United States Code up to date more than the LRC can once it was in place. On the other hand, between the LRC site and Thomas its not too difficult to make certain one has the current law and including the US Code would likely consume at least a gigabyte of storage? 21:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That doesn't sound like a good idea to me. The U.S.C. is not only huge, it's incredibly boring. Many important sections are difficult to comprehend unless one is looking at an annotated version (for example, see the deceptively short 9 U.S.C. § 2) because of the way that the courts have fumbled around with how to interpret them and created all kinds of "judicial glosses" on their meaning. And the vast majority of U.S.C. sections are so arcane that they might be worth reading maybe once in a century; the rest of the time they'll just be occupying disk space with no one accessing them. I think Wikipedia should leave the business of messing around with the details of the U.S.C. to the LRC and the professional law publishers. --Coolcaesar 07:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Maybe something in between. Wikipedia doesn't seem like the right place for the code itself (if it goes anywhere, it would probably be Wikisource) but there certainly could be a lot more room for explanation of specific portions of the law. Perhaps we could split each code onto each own page to facilitate this? --Arcadian 12:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me a better idea is to just stay with the status quo where we have articles for specific acts like the Americans with Disabilities Act and specific government departments like Homeland Security, with appropriate citations to code sections (and links to the text of specific Code sections as posted by outside sites, if they're relevant). "Federal Arbitration Act" is a lot more memorable then 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. --Coolcaesar 16:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Titles need work
The titles seem to be quite out of date. I'm looking at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1 as a comparison. It seems like the table of titles should be brought up to date with the GPO's assessment, though I'm too timid to do it all.
Brian
- Brian, that link takes you to a list of titles in the Code of Federal Regulations. The list of U.S. Code titles is here. Russ Blau (talk) July 1, 2005 02:26 (UTC)
[edit] Most famous by far?
- "By far, the most famous section in the Code is 42 U.S.C. § 1983"
I am not a lawyer, but I do not think that this is the most famous part of the US code. I think TITLE 26 Subtitle A CHAPTER 1 Subchapter D PART I Subpart A § 401 is more famous for non-lawyers. Most people have heard of 401(k), not as many 42 U.S.C. § 1983. - (unsigned comment 1/3)
-
- Your complaint sounds reasonable. Feel free to switch it to something like "One of the most famous sections..." or something like that. --Arcadian 16:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
