The enrolled bill rule is a principle of judicial interpretation of rules of procedure in legislative bodies. Under the doctrine, once a bill passes a legislative body and is signed into law, the courts assume that all rules of procedure in the enactment process were properly followed. That is, "[i]f a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted."[1]
The doctrine was adopted in The King v. Arundel.[2] It was based on the proposition that when an Act was passed and assented to, it was affixed with the Great Seal, the "effective legal act of enactment".[3] It was "a regal act, and no official might dispute the king's word".
The enrolled bill rule was restated by Lord Campbell in Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway Co v Wauchope.[4] In that case it was complained that the passage of a private bill was defective because proper notice had not been given. The House of Lords rejected the notion that the validity of an Act could be questioned.
United Statesedit
In the United States, the rule was adopted by the Supreme Court in Field v. Clark, 143U.S. 649 (1892). In effect, the court ruled that the enrolled bill signed by the presiding officers of the two houses of Congress was the best evidence of what had been passed, being on balance better evidence than the journals of the respective houses, so it should not be called into question.[5]
State lawedit
At the time of the decision in Field, nine states had adopted the doctrine, and thirteen had rejected it.[5] At least two states have weakened it:
The Supreme Court of Kentucky[6] has held that "there is a prima facie presumption that an enrolled bill is valid but such presumption may be overcome by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence establishing that constitutional requirements have not been met".
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has limited the application of the doctrine.[7] It held, "When a law has been passed and approved and certified in due form, it is no part of the duty of the judiciary to go behind the law as duly certified to inquire into the observance of form in its passage", but the court also noted that "it would be a serious dereliction ... to deliberately ignore a clear constitutional violation".
^D&W Auto Supply v. Dept. of Revenue, 602 S.W.2d 420 (Ky. 1980)
^Consumer Party of Pa. v. Commonwealth, 507 A.2d 323 (Pa. 1986).
April 13, 2024
enrolled, bill, rule, enrolled, bill, rule, principle, judicial, interpretation, rules, procedure, legislative, bodies, under, doctrine, once, bill, passes, legislative, body, signed, into, courts, assume, that, rules, procedure, enactment, process, were, prop. The enrolled bill rule is a principle of judicial interpretation of rules of procedure in legislative bodies Under the doctrine once a bill passes a legislative body and is signed into law the courts assume that all rules of procedure in the enactment process were properly followed That is i f a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials the court treats that document as properly adopted 1 Contents 1 United Kingdom 2 United States 2 1 State law 3 See also 4 ReferencesUnited Kingdom editThe doctrine was adopted in The King v Arundel 2 It was based on the proposition that when an Act was passed and assented to it was affixed with the Great Seal the effective legal act of enactment 3 It was a regal act and no official might dispute the king s word The enrolled bill rule was restated by Lord Campbell in Edinburgh amp Dalkeith Railway Co v Wauchope 4 In that case it was complained that the passage of a private bill was defective because proper notice had not been given The House of Lords rejected the notion that the validity of an Act could be questioned United States editIn the United States the rule was adopted by the Supreme Court in Field v Clark 143 U S 649 1892 In effect the court ruled that the enrolled bill signed by the presiding officers of the two houses of Congress was the best evidence of what had been passed being on balance better evidence than the journals of the respective houses so it should not be called into question 5 State law edit At the time of the decision in Field nine states had adopted the doctrine and thirteen had rejected it 5 At least two states have weakened it The Supreme Court of Kentucky 6 has held that there is a prima facie presumption that an enrolled bill is valid but such presumption may be overcome by clear satisfactory and convincing evidence establishing that constitutional requirements have not been met The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has limited the application of the doctrine 7 It held When a law has been passed and approved and certified in due form it is no part of the duty of the judiciary to go behind the law as duly certified to inquire into the observance of form in its passage but the court also noted that it would be a serious dereliction to deliberately ignore a clear constitutional violation See also editUnited States House Committee on Enrolled Bills Parliamentary sovereigntyReferences edit United States v Thomas 788 F 2d 1250 7th Cir 1986 cert denied 107 S Ct 187 1986 citing Field v Clark 143 U S 649 36 L Ed 294 12 S Ct 495 1892 The King v Arundel 1616 EWHC J11 Ch 80 ER 258 1617 Hobart 109 Sandler David Forget What You Learned in Civics Class The Enrolled Bill Rule and Why It s Time to Overrule Field v Clark PDF Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 41 217 19 Archived from the original PDF on 2012 01 29 Retrieved 2011 07 05 Edinburgh amp Dalkeith Railway Company v Wauchope 1842 UKHL J12 1842 1 Bell 278 8 Cl amp Fin 710 8 ER 279 22 March 1842 a b 143 U S 649 D amp W Auto Supply v Dept of Revenue 602 S W 2d 420 Ky 1980 Consumer Party of Pa v Commonwealth 507 A 2d 323 Pa 1986 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Enrolled bill rule amp oldid 1183200184, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
