Legislative scrutiny in the United States: dynamic, whole-stream revision

Sean J. Kealy
{"title":"Legislative scrutiny in the United States: dynamic, whole-stream revision","authors":"Sean J. Kealy","doi":"10.1080/20508840.2021.1904568","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Legislative drafting in the United States Congress is a dynamic process with many actors working to revise both a bill’s policy and language. Rather than a central drafting office or government agency responsible for drafting bills, legislative language and amendments come from many sources: Congressional committee staff, the House and Senate Offices of Legislative Counsel, special interest lobbyists, and executive agencies. The hope is that bills become stronger and better drafted as it moves through the process; but that is not always the case. In addition, Congress still does not use a single standard drafting style. Still, there have been improvements in recent decades. For example, the House of Representatives developed a preferred drafting style and created a manual to guide drafters. However, Congress can and should do more to improve legislative quality. In this article I suggest several reforms: empowering the committee chairs to not just guide legislation through Congress, but promote better quality legislation; requiring greater drafting style standardisation; creating new materials and trainings to assist legislative actors, particularly committee staff, to recognise defective drafting and appreciate the value of careful drafting practices; and creating a advisory commission that will bring together key drafting participants to propose further reforms.","PeriodicalId":42455,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20508840.2021.1904568","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2021.1904568","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Legislative drafting in the United States Congress is a dynamic process with many actors working to revise both a bill’s policy and language. Rather than a central drafting office or government agency responsible for drafting bills, legislative language and amendments come from many sources: Congressional committee staff, the House and Senate Offices of Legislative Counsel, special interest lobbyists, and executive agencies. The hope is that bills become stronger and better drafted as it moves through the process; but that is not always the case. In addition, Congress still does not use a single standard drafting style. Still, there have been improvements in recent decades. For example, the House of Representatives developed a preferred drafting style and created a manual to guide drafters. However, Congress can and should do more to improve legislative quality. In this article I suggest several reforms: empowering the committee chairs to not just guide legislation through Congress, but promote better quality legislation; requiring greater drafting style standardisation; creating new materials and trainings to assist legislative actors, particularly committee staff, to recognise defective drafting and appreciate the value of careful drafting practices; and creating a advisory commission that will bring together key drafting participants to propose further reforms.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国的立法审查:动态的、全程的修订
摘要美国国会的立法起草是一个动态的过程,许多参与者都在努力修改法案的政策和语言。立法语言和修正案不是由中央起草办公室或政府机构负责起草法案,而是来自许多来源:国会委员会工作人员、众议院和参议院立法顾问办公室、特殊利益游说者和行政机构。希望法案在通过过程中变得更有力、起草得更好;但事实并非总是如此。此外,国会仍然没有使用单一的标准起草风格。尽管如此,近几十年来还是有所改善。例如,众议院制定了一种首选的起草风格,并制定了一份手册来指导起草者。然而,国会可以而且应该做更多的工作来提高立法质量。在这篇文章中,我建议进行几项改革:授权委员会主席不仅指导国会的立法,而且促进更高质量的立法;需要更大的起草风格标准化;编写新的材料和培训,以协助立法行为者,特别是委员会工作人员,认识到起草工作有缺陷,并认识到认真起草工作的价值;以及成立一个咨询委员会,将主要起草参与者聚集在一起,提出进一步的改革建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Theory and Practice of Legislation aims to offer an international and interdisciplinary forum for the examination of legislation. The focus of the journal, which succeeds the former title Legisprudence, remains with legislation in its broadest sense. Legislation is seen as both process and product, reflection of theoretical assumptions and a skill. The journal addresses formal legislation, and its alternatives (such as covenants, regulation by non-state actors etc.). The editors welcome articles on systematic (as opposed to historical) issues, including drafting techniques, the introduction of open standards, evidence-based drafting, pre- and post-legislative scrutiny for effectiveness and efficiency, the utility and necessity of codification, IT in legislation, the legitimacy of legislation in view of fundamental principles and rights, law and language, and the link between legislator and judge. Comparative and interdisciplinary approaches are encouraged. But dogmatic descriptions of positive law are outside the scope of the journal. The journal offers a combination of themed issues and general issues. All articles are submitted to double blind review.
期刊最新文献
Regulatory capture in energy sector: evidence from Indonesia Operationalisation of legislation and the will of legislators in the judgments of international courts of war crimes and post-war recovery Observing law-making patterns in times of crisis Exploring the relationship between law and governance: a proposal Governing during the COVID-19 pandemic
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1