|WikiProject Politics||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|This article is currently or was the subject of an educational assignment.|
statue of limatation is 2years.police - att.-crimanal-big buisness.all know about the program.that gives them 2yrs.to sit on the ball.so they dont have to pay civil rights any money.so if you hold up a bank dont take a gun.cause its not a federal charge on membissment.and the occ the ftc is on the side of the bank.regulator where? who gets payed There seems to be a large amount of information on the progress of Bills in the Act of Parliament article. Is there any reason this shouldn't become a redirect? That is, is there some relevant usage of Bill that isn't, and couldn't be, covered by the Act article? If there is no immediate response, I'll make the necessary changes when I get round to it
- "What links here", in case the feature becomes disabled again: Bill (disambiguation page), Canada Line-item veto Act of Parliament Slavery and State's Rights Nude beach Omnibus spending bill Thomas Bracken
- Bill is a disambiguation, so there are probably many more that should be linked to here.
- IMSoP 13:30, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
So unless anyone says differently i'm gonna take over for IMSoP and make this a redirect tomorrow. --Dhuss 03:32, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- If you change it to a redirect, the information needs to be merged, because Act of Parliament has no info on the US procedure. Also, if it IS redirected, it should probably be renamed to something that can encompass both US bills and Acts of Parliament, as Act of Parliament is a completely inappropriate name for US bills. Jamesmusik 02:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Are the final three paragraphs identical to the three preceding ones or is this some sort of edit in progress?
Please remove if it is duplicate. Jamesmusik 22:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC) I removed the duplicate myself, keeping the edit lowest on the page. James 17:53, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
I think having a section on just the US is a bit wrong. How about providing links to articles which discuss the process for as many countries as possible? E.g. to Parliament of New Zealand#Passage of legislation. --Midnighttonight 01:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- The US info is a repeat from United States Congress#Legislative procedure.--Midnighttonight 05:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I generally agree. While occasionally using examples from specific countries can be beneficial, this article should serve as a generic descriptor of the concept of a bill. Details related to specific countries are sufficiently notable that they should either already have a separate wikipedia article (or at least section) on the matter, or probably deserve one. Once this is done, most of the current external links, which are currently separated by country, should be moved off to the appropriate pages. If such a list ends up being redundant to an existing list of articles on legislative procedure by country, then perhaps this page should just be drastically shorted to little more than a definition type article, and direct readers to that appropriate legistative article. (I don't know I haven't crawled about the legislative articles yet.) -Verdatum (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Info about the chinese translation of the term.....
This page should be moved back to Bill (proposed law). That title was perfectly compliant with WP:DISAMB, and was not misleading, unlike the present title, which suggests that a Bill is a law. For the avoidance of doubt, "proposed law" is certainly a class because it has at least one other member, namely draft Bills. James500 (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NCDAB allows either hypernyms ("generic class") or domains ("the subject or context"). I think from Neelix's edit summary that the perceived problem with "proposed law" was that it is a synonym of "bill" rather than merely a hypernym. I take your point that "proposed law" is more general than "bill", but I don't know that it is sufficiently obviously so; ideally in SpecificName (GenericClass), the conceptual distinction between genus and species would be wider. I didn't know till checking Neelix's edit summary whether the disambiguator "law" was intended as a hypernym (law as a count noun) or a domain (law as a mass noun). I take the point that "law" is not a hypernym at all. The summary indicates that domain was intended. Bill (lawmaking) might be more clearly a domain disambiguator rather than a hypernym. Bill (business of legislature) would be a definite hypernym but is unwieldy. Bill (legislation) is shorter, but "legislation" usually means completed legislation rather than legislation under consideration, so we have the same problem as Bill (law). Other suggestions welcome. jnestorius(talk) 14:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
It is possible to speak of a "Bill introduced into Parliament". It is also possible to speak of the Bill for an Act of Parliament, but this might exclude failed Bills. "Proposed law" presumably includes a draft statutory instrument and a draft of any other type of legislation. "Proposal for legislation" appears in s 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, so it may be necessary to check whether that expression has a technical meaning. James500 (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I also think the present domain is unacceptably broad because there are other types of bill that might be regarded as legal documents. What about, for example, banknotes, bills of exchange, bills of lading and treasury bills? James500 (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
It is also possible to speak of a Bill presented to Parliament. James500 (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC) A number of results in GBooks indicate that presentation and introduction are the same thing. North Carolina Manual, 1985, p 344. The Congressional Digest, 1922, p 31. This. James500 (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)