Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Email
Answers.com

Legislative history

 
Law Encyclopedia: Legislative History
This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.

The discussions and documents, including committee reports, hearings, and floor debates, surrounding and preceding the enactment of a law.

Legislative history includes earlier, similar bills introduced but not passed by thelegislature; legislative and executive reports and studies regarding the legislation; transcripts from legislative committee hearings and reports from the committees; and floor debates on the bill.

The legislative history of a statute is a unique form of secondary legal authority. It is not binding on courts in the way that primary authority is. Federal and state constitutions, statutes, case law (judicial decisions), and agency regulations form the body of primary authority that courts use to resolve disputes. As secondary authority, legislative history is used only to decipher the precise meaning behind an ambiguous statute or statutory provision.

For example, suppose Congress passes a criminal law requiring that all persons under age eighteen who appear in public after sundown must carry a federal identification card, which must be produced for law enforcement officers on demand. If the statute contains no definition of the phrase "in public," a court faced with a case brought under it may have to consult the legislative history to determine precisely where minors may venture without the identification card.

The value of legislative history in the law is similar to that of academictreatises: both are extrinsic aids. Lawyers may use favorable language from legislative history and academic treatises when they are presenting arguments to a court, and courts may use it when they are attempting to interpret a statute.

In some countries, such as England, courts may not consider secondary sources in making any decision. In these countries the potential for judicial abuse of a secondary source such as legislative history is considered an unacceptable risk to the legislative and judicial processes. The fear is that a judge could use one particularly unrepresentative statement from a lengthy legislative debate to incorrectly interpret a statute.

North Haven Board of Education v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 102 S. Ct. 1912, 72 L. Ed. 2d 299 (1982), illustrates why legislative history is of secondary importance. The question in Bell was whether a federal statute (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 373, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1681 et seq.) barred gender-based discrimination in employment by educational institutions. In answering the question in the affirmative, the majority opinion relied heavily on the remarks of Senator Birch Bayh, the sponsor of the legislation. The dissenting opinion relied heavily on remarks by the same senator in reaching a different conclusion.

Not all legislative history in the United States has the same value. Generally, committee reports have the most weight with the judiciary. Remarks of legislators during floor debates have the least value. Committee hearings and reports from the president or governor are given varying weight, according to the court's need for the information.

Legislative history is never the only consideration in a case. In all cases courts examine the plain meaning of the words in the statute before looking at any legislative history.

The legislative history of federal statutes can be found in the various publications of special legislative commissions and legislative committee hearings, and in the Congressional Record. The Congressional Record is published by Congress each day that it is in session. It summarizes the proceedings of the previous day in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Members of Congress also may publish unspoken remarks and all or part of their floor speeches. Collections of federal legislative history are maintained in law libraries and state government libraries. West Group issues a compilation of the statutes passed in each session of Congress and their legislative history. This compilation, called the United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, is available in state government libraries, in law libraries, and on West's on-line computer service, WESTLAW.

Legislative materials on the state level are more difficult to acquire. In most states committee reports and transcripts of floor debates are stored at the state government library at the state capitol for a certain period of time, such as two years. After that period of time, they may be shipped to a state archives office. Some well-stocked law libraries may have history on state legislation.

The availability of the history of local laws varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some large cities preserve committee reports and legislative comments on local laws; most small towns leave no trace of the intent behind their laws.

Methods for storing state and local legislative history vary widely. To find the legislative history of a particular state or local statute, consult the reference librarian at the appropriate state government library or at a law library.

See: canons of construction.

Search unanswered questions...
Enter a question here...
Search: All sources Community Q&A Reference topics
Wikipedia: Legislative history
Top

Legislative history includes any of various materials generated in the course of creating legislation, such as committee reports, analysis by legislative counsel, committee hearings, floor debates, and histories of actions taken. Legislative history is used for discovering sources of information about the legislative intent.

Contents

Sweden

Swedish courts frequently avail themselves of the legislative history (förarbeten, literally "travaux préparatoires") in interpreting the law. Valid documents of legislative history are often taken to be official government reports, the bills presented by the Government before the Riksdag, statements made by the responsible minister at the Government session where the bill was adopted, the report on the bill by the relevant Riksdag committee (utskottsbetänkande), and statements made by the responsible minister during the debate in the Riksdag.

United Kingdom

Prior to 1993 looking into the Parliamentary records to aid interpretation would have been perceived as a breach of Parliamentary privilege; however the House of Lords ruled in Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 that it could do so in specific circumstances.

United States

The use of legislative history - usually as a tool of intentionalism - can be controversial. Judge Alex Kozinski summed up the concerns as follows:

  1. The two Houses and the President agree on the text of statutes, not on committee reports or floor statements. To give substantive effect to this flotsam and jetsam of the legislative process is to short-circuit the constitutional scheme for making law.
  2. Collective intent is an oxymoron. Congress is not a thinking entity; it is a group of individuals, each of whom may or may not have an "intent" as to any particular provision of the statute. But to look for congressional intent is to engage in anthropomorphism--to search for something that cannot be found because it does not exist.
  3. Even if there were such a thing as congressional intent, and even if it could be divined, it wouldn't matter. What matters is what Congress does, not what it intends to do. So, in our hypothetical case, it matters not that Congress intended to delete section 666 from the crime bill; what matters is what it did, and what it did was to pass the bill with the section included.
  4. Even if the other obstacles could be overcome, reliance on legislative history actually makes statutes more difficult to interpret by casting doubt on otherwise clear language. This makes it much more difficult for people to conform their conduct to the law, as no one can tell what the law is until a court has weighed the language, the legislative history, the policy considerations, and other relevant information. This increases litigation costs and undermines the rule of law.
  5. Legislative history is often contradictory, giving courts a chance to pick and choose those bits which support the result the judges want to reach. In Judge Leventhal's immortal phrase, consulting legislative history is like "looking over a crowd of people and picking out your friends." n24 This shifts power from the Congress and the President--who, after all, are charged with writing the laws--to unelected judges. The more sources a court can consult in deciding how to interpret a statute, the more likely the interpretation will reflect the policy judgments of the judges and not that of the political branches.
  6. Allowing legislative history to do work that should be done by statutory language leads to political unaccountability. Members of Congress who reach an impasse can agree on murky language, then salt the legislative record with clues and hints hoping to shift the process of interpretation their way. Elected officials can thus achieve substantive results without having to take the political responsibility that would come from passing clear-cut statutory language.
  7. Shifting important policy judgments to the courts brings the judiciary into disrepute and undermines the notion that judges apply the law objectively. When the public comes to understand that judges are simply unelected, life-tenured bureaucrats dressed in black, making policy decisions just like other government officials, the moral authority of the courts will be seriously undermined and popular obeisance to the courts' constitutional judgments will be jeopardized.

(A. Kozinski, Should Reading Legislative History Be an Impeachable Offense?,31 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 807 (1998) at 813-814)

See also

External links


 
 

 

Copyrights:

Law Encyclopedia. West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Copyright © 1998 by The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.  Read more
Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Legislative history" Read more