Template talk:Infobox U.S. legislation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States / Government (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

"Titles amended" = ??[edit]

Does anyone know what "Titles amended" refers to? Does this refer to the USC titles that were amended? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill not yet passed?[edit]

What do we do with a bill that has not yet been voted on/passed? For example, FAIR USE Act. --Briguyd 01:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can use this box for that... it might be worthwhile sitting down and working out what is needed for an infobox for current and past bills. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


Shouldn't this be updated to use the Template:United States legal citation templates? Currently, a URL to the public law must be given manually, and the Template:USPL and freinds can't be used. What's the way to go about changing this? Int21h (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Bills, revisited[edit]

Because of lack of information in the public, people often think bills before Congress have already become law. The misapprehension is compounded by the way we name articles. Instead of calling something the "X Bill", we call it the "X Act" before it is enacted. Whether that is nonetheless wise is certainly debatable, but editors also use this infobox for bills. Unfortunately, the infobox is wholly unsuitable for bills. In the top section it says, "Enacted by the [Xth United States Congress]" and provides no indication of current status or recent changes in status. These aren't failings, obviously, as this template was never intended to apply to bills. However, the situation needs to be addressed. Is the better solution to amend this template to be more inclusive or to create a new one for bills? -Rrius (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little disappointed that no one has commented yet. This is not something where I feel comfortable simply making the changes because there are three distinct tracks, each of which demands significant changes to this template and its tranclusions. The first way to deal with this is to add parameters that would make it flexible enough to handle acts, as is currently the case, and bills and joint resolutions. These would be fairly complex and would require employing a switch like "enacted=yes/no" with a default of "yes" for the benefit of most of the transclusions (and perhaps with a third option of "failed" for bills from previous Congresses). As a result, it would be necessary to comb through the transclusions and convert appropriate bills to "enacted=no" (or "failed"). Bills with "enacted=no" should include "(Proposed)" after the short title at the top, should replace "Enacted by" with "Proposed during" or the like, and shouldn't include any section other than the Legislative history one as it will necessarily lack information for the others.
A second method is to add a new template for bills. Since there is already a {{USBill}}, naming is an issue. The most obvious keyword would be "legislation", which could cause confusion with this template. While it would be entirely possible to put the new template at {{Infobox U.S. bill}}, the cleanest solution would be to move this to {{Infobox Act}} because it would make it clear that this template is only for passed laws. No matter which name is used, we would, again, need to comb through the tranclusions, this time to change the infobox for bills.
Finally, we could simply remove the infobox from all proposed legislation (perhaps by commenting it out so that the information is still there in case it passes). This too would require combing through the transclusions so that we could remove the infobox.
I'm perfectly willing to do the work, I just want some indication of the direction in which other editors want to go. -Rrius (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The first method appears to be more convenient for editors, as the legislative history would be maintained if a bill was enacted. But otherwise I think any of the three choices are reasonable. Whatever choice is selected, I would appreciate a legend or similar documentation for the infobox. I struggled to use this infobox when I first started, and some of the parameters worked differently than I thought they would. Moreau1 (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Presidential veto and override[edit]

The box needs parameters for veto and override, for enacted legislation. I did a workaround for a veto/override at Clean Water Act, but the default text displays "Signed into law by President" which is not correct. I suggest the following new parameters:

  • Veto by President (Presidentvetodate= )
  • Override by House (Overridehousedate= ) (Overridevotehouse= )
  • Override by Senate (Overridesenatedate= ) (Overridevotesenate= )

If possible, it should flag an error if both "signedpresident" and veto/override parameters are entered. These are the essential parameters. Other parameters could be added for the situation when a bill becomes law without the President's signature, and for a veto situation there could also be a parameter for the date the President returned the bill to Congress. (See Veto for description.).
Thank you in advance! Moreau1 (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If we were to do such a thing, I think we should be able to vary which house comes first as bills return to the originating house, which is not always the House of Representatives. This is in line with the other parameters for this template. Therefore, I suggest these as the parameters:
  • vetodate=
  • overridebody1=
  • overridedate1=
  • overridevote1=
  • overridebody2=
  • overridedate2=
  • overridevote2=
-Rrius (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
That looks good to me. Moreau1 (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreeing with the ideas above, I have added fields for when a bill is passed without presidential signing or when it is passed by overriding a presidential veto. To be consistent with the other fields, I've used the past tense ('vetoed' / 'overridden'). Note, however, that there are no flags if more than one method of passage is used. See the documentation for the updated list. --Allstar86 (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Broken citation function[edit]

The "cite public law = " parameter is not displaying the label. (For example, see Clean Air Act (United States)). Can someone fix? Thanks. Moreau1 (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Long title, short title, colloquial names, acronyms[edit]

I would like to make a few changes to this template to make its name-related fields more reflective of actual usage by legislative drafters and legal researchers. In particular, changes would include:

  • The "fullname" field refers to what is generally called an act's "long title"; the field would be renamed to reflect this usage. See the Wikipedia article on long titles; see also Lawrence E. Filson & Sandra L. Strokoff, The Legislative Drafter's Desk Reference: Best Practices in Drafting Federal and State Laws and Regulations (2d ed.) CQ Press, 2008. pp. 118-20.
  • The "name" field refers to what is generally called an act's "short title", which is a title included in the text of Act itself (usually in the first section); the field would be renamed to reflect this usage. The note in the template concerning the inclusion of a "date" should note that the date should only be included (and in fact, must be included) where a date is given in the short title itself; where no date is given in the short title itself, the note should mention that a date cannot be included. The note would also specify that if the act has multiple short titles, the first short title specified in the bill should be the one used in this field.
  • As noted above, some acts have multiple short titles. Some of these short titles may appear at the beginning of the act, while others may simply be short titles for components of the act. I thus propose adding a new template field, designated "other short titles", to be used for such acts.
  • A distinction should be made between acronyms that are directly incorporated into an act as a short title and "colloquial" acronyms. For example, Public Law 108-21 has two short titles: "Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003" is one short title, and "PROTECT Act" is another short title. Even though the term "PROTECT Act" functionally is an acronym, it's also an official short title, and thus the term should appear in "other short titles" field instead of the "acronym" field. In contrast, purely "colloquial" acronyms (which are not short titles, and appear nowhere in the act's language itself) would appear in the "acronym" field. For example, Pub.L. 100–379 has only one short title, "Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act", and it's acronym--the "WARN Act"--is purely colloquial, not appearing in the bill itself. Thus, the term "WARN Act" would be placed in the "acronym" field. To clarify this distinction, a note can be inserted into the template next to the "acronym" field, and the field's designation could change from "acronym" to "colloquial acronym". –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree. Thanks for your contribution. Moreau1 (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
These look like sensible ideas. Thanks. JimHarperDC (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Moreau1 and JimHarper DC. I've implemented the changes, and I am currently in the processing of fixing the fields on the pages that use the template. If anyone wants to lend a hand, do feel free; I could use the help! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
@Prototime:, it's never a good idea to change the parameter name in the code, as that breaks the existing 400+ transclusions, and, as I'm sure you have noticed, making 400+ page edits by hand is a bigger task than you imagined. Additionally, existing editors sometimes grow familiar with the existing set of params, and will continue to use them. Instead, it is safer to add the newly-defined parameters, thus always maintaining backwards-compatibility. I have therefore added |name=, |fullname= and |acronym= back, as aliases for |shorttitle=, |longtitle= and |colloquialacronym=, respectively. I see that you already added |nickname= back, not as an alias to |othershorttitles=, but in addition as a separate param. Is that intended? Thanks.  Grollτech (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
While you're at it, there are two parameters that have not been working for some time:
|acts amended= (displays the parameter, but no label)
|amendments= (does not display anything)
Any chance these can be fixed? Thanks. Moreau1 (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 Done for |acts amended=. Are you sure about |amendments=? They show up at the bottom, as in DOMA.  Grollτech (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
You're right, |amendments= is working fine. Much appreciated! Moreau1 (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Grolltech, thanks for your help fixing this up. Concerning othershorttitles, that field is indeed meant to be separate from nicknames; nicknames are colloquial, whereas "other" short titles are alternative but official names of legislation. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
No problem, glad to help.  Grollτech (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested Modifications[edit]

Hi all! I'm new-ish to Wikipedia, so I don't dare make these changes myself, but I have some ideas for improvements to this template. I'm part of a WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Federal Government Legislative Data, that is focused on getting notable pieces of US legislation up on Wikipedia. A lot of US legislation is notable without ever becoming law (CISPA in the last Congress, the fight against which Wikipedia participated in; potentially the new immigration bill that's getting a lot of media attention, etc). I was hoping some changes could be made in order to make this template more helpful on the pages of legislation that never becomes law.

  • First, I'd like to have some data added to the top box (immediately under the seal). It would be helpful if there were lines for: "Introduced in: XXXth Congress"; Date Introduced; Sponsor name; and Number of Cosponsors. This data is essential for bills that never become law and would be helpful even for bills that do (it would quickly tell how much time passed between introduction and enactment, for example).
  • Second, the box title "Codification" might be more accurately re-titled "Effects and Codification". For example, that section currently offers the option to insert the names of acts would would be repealed or amended if the legislation were passed. This action is more of an effect than a codification. As an encyclopedia, I think it is worth striving for as much accuracy as possible.
  • Third, I notice what I think is an accidental printout error in the "Codification" box. The line for "Act(s) amended" does not appear in bold in the filled in infobox, unlike the lines "Act(s) repealed" and "Title(s) amended".
  • Fourth, we think it would be cool if the infobox also included a line in the "Effects and Codification" section on "Agencies affected". Several of the people on our WikiProject on legislation are using a computer program to read legislation and track which agencies are affected by the legislation - changes in their budget, duties, areas of authority, etc. This information would be easy for us to add and would tell the reader helpful things like that the bill mostly affects the department of homeland security.
  • Fifth, we'd like to see two more lines: "Authorizations of appropriations: $XXXXX" and "Appropriations: $XXXX". We think it would be valuable for readers to be able to tell, at a glance, whether the legislation in question dealt with significant quantities of money. Again, the computer program we're using is able to count this for us, or, alternatively, such information is often available in Congressional Budget Office reports. There needs to be two sections because the two items are separate activities - authorizations give permission for the use of money, while appropriations actually give out the authorized amounts of money.

Please let me know what you think of these proposed changes. I'm excited to see more legislation being posted on Wikipedia where concepts and agencies can be wikilinked to in order to help the general public understand legislation better. I'll watch this page for follow up comments. Thanks! HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Those would certainly be useful bits of information to present to readers, but my concern is that we would not be able to find the information for most bills in reliable secondary sources without relying on original research. Andrew327 03:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
From the paragraph "First" - those items (introduction date, cosponsors, etc) are all easily found from beta.congress.gov, Congress' official website that lists all of these details.
From the paragraph "Second" - renaming the box title from "Codification" to "Codification and Effects" is just more accurate phrasing, not a matter of finding additional research.
From the paragraph "Third" - that's an accidental printing error - leaving out the phrase "Act(s) amended", which clearly is intended to be present.
From the paragraph "Fourth" - I can sorta see your point about original research, but at the same time I'm not worried about it. The same site I mentioned above, beta.congress.gov, includes the Congressional Research Service's summary of the bill. Reading the summary usually names all of the major agencies that are involved in the bill. Does that really count as original research? (I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia, so I haven't been thinking much about the concept of "original research"...). That said, if a reputable organization (say a DC think tank) is publishing on the internet a list of how many times a different agency is referenced in a particular bill, wouldn't that count as a secondary source, instead of primary research?
From the paragraph "Fifth" - this is mostly the same question as the fourth section. But, I'd also add that the numbers I mentioned adding (Authorizations and Appropriations) are typically available in the Congressional Budget Office's reports which are freely available to the public on their website.
I'm glad that you agree that this information would be valuable. That is, after all, the point of an infobox.  :) Hopefully we can get some more comments on this. Thanks for your thoughts! HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, these things are contents of the bill automatically gleaned from them by our software. These changes would produce more fully informative infoboxes, particularly for bills that have not (or do not) become law. JimHarperDC (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
What about another addition to the box: A link to the final vote on a bill (on House and Senate web sites). Not all bills or laws get a final vote, but when they do that vote is a straightforward bit of information that relays where representatives stood on it at a crucial point. JimHarperDC (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi All! I'm cancelling my request for changes to this infobox. I've worked with several other people to build a separate infobox directed at proposed legislation so that no changes need to be made to this template (which seems to be designed with enacted legislation. I'll post a link to that template here once we are done with it, in case anyone is interested. Thanks!HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Declared unconstitutional?[edit]

I'm looking for suggestions on the best way to handle legislation (or portions thereof) being declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the Defense of Marriage Act article, I added the following under "Major Amendments":

Section 3 (1 U.S.C. § 7) struck down by the Supreme Court on June 26, 2013

In the Voting Rights Act of 1965 article, however, I similarly attempted to add:

Section 4(b) (42 U.S.C. § 1973b(b)) struck down by the Supreme Court on June 25, 2013

but it was removed, with the comment: "constitutional interpretations are not legislative amendments".

Now, I understand the difference between legislative and judicial amendments, but IMHO, a declaration of unconstitutionality is still an amendment, and I see no template documentation that narrowly restricts "amendments" only to those of the legislative variety. The only acceptable alternatives would be adding it to the SCOTUS section, or the addition of new parameters to the template that are specific to declarations of unconstitutionality, such as:

|unconstitutional sections = 4(b)
|unconstitutional codified = {{Uscsub|42|1973b|b}}
|unconstitutional date = June 25, 2013

This approach, while it provides for consistent handling of such scenarios, fails when the Court strikes separate sections on separate dates (I have no idea how often this occurs).

I therefore seek thoughts and comments from others. Thanks,  Grollτech (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the other editors that "amendment" is not a term that is at all applicable to court decisions. There's no such thing as a "judicial amendment" to a statute (at least not in U.S. law). So the info could only be included under a different and separate parameter. postdlf (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a minefield. I see the logic in this, but technically these court decisions only effect that court (stary decisions), its subordinate courts (certiari), and all others within its jurisdiction (mandate, prohibition, habeas corpus, etc.). Its not as if the laws are not still laws, its that they are not recognized in these courts which just-so-happen to have near universal jurisdiction nowadays via these writs.
So what happens when one court says this, one court says another, and neither is within the jurisdiction of the other? What happens when only one local court says this (Proposition 8)? Are we going to have this all in the infobox? Int21h (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
If anything, it should be merged with the SCOTUS cases section. Looking at infobox for the Defense of Marriage Act article, that section just reads:
United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), (Docket No. 12-307)
but gives no quick summary of what was ruled (e.g. "law upheld" or "law struck down"). Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Int21h, my question was specific to SCOTUS declaring a piece of legislation to be unconstitutional, not to situations in which different circuits hold differing opinions – that would absolutely be a minefield.  Grollτech (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
"Amendment" is not a term used in the United States to refer to judicial opinions, but to legislative enactments; Wikipedia should reflect this convention. I believe this is, by far, the strongest reason to keep court decisions out of the "Amendments" section of the infobox section, but there are other reasons as well. For one, opening the door to this would be unwieldy; if every decision a court struck down a statute constitutes an "amendment", then by the same logic so should every decision in which a court interprets a statute, given that the court is giving the statute a particular meaning. Furthermore, when we include legislation under the "Amendments" part of the infobox, we do not describe which specific provisions were amended in the legislation (nor feasibly could we), and giving this degree of specificity to judicial interpretations would be inconsistent. Thus, while court cases interpreting a statute or striking a statute down are important, they really shouldn't be included in the "Amendments" section of the infobox. Those court cases, which are almost always US Supreme Court opinions, can properly be highlighted in the "United States Supreme Court cases" section of the infobox, and then discussed more fully in the article body. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Prototime for the most part - the Codification/Amendments sections should not not incorporate the "unconstitutional" proposal. In addition, the premise itself is somewhat flawed. We can't really cite the U.S. Code section(s) then go on to state it was deemed unconstitutional or whatever because that gives the impression the section(s) in question never had relevance or even existed at some point in time prior to the SCOTUS ruling. If somebody was researching laws in effect in 2003, the DOMA section(s) would still be part of that querry regardless of what happen to it in 2013 ten years later. Another example of "ruled unconstitutional" would be the Line-Item Veto - which is still indexed in many U.S.C. serials today but it's provisions once found in the affected sections under its heading have been blanked (omitted) ever since the SCOTUS ruling nullifying it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
On a related point, we should keep in mind that when the Supreme Court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, the text of the statute isn't actually repealed; its enforcement is just enjoined. So even in a literal sense, courts don't amend statutes. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, forget about adding it to the "Amendments" section – this is why I asked the question. Prototime, I'm not talking about every decision in which a court interprets a statute, I'm talking about the U.S. Supreme Court, which I believe carries at least some measure of relevance to U.S. legislation, declaring a portion of that legislation to be unconstitutional. Leaving the infobox, which includes the history of the legislation, without any mention whatsoever of the Supreme Court decision is a flat-out lie by omission. George Orwell III, thank you for the example of the Line-Item Veto... did Congress come along after the SCOTUS decision to replace those sections with the words "Omitted"? I think not. I have no problem if consensus is to simply add verbiage to the SCOTUS section, along the lines of:
United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), (Docket No. 12-307), in which Section 3 (1 U.S.C. § 7) was struck down by the Supreme Court on June 26, 2013.
My main point is that it needs to go somewhere. Thanks.  Grollτech (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Grolltech, I should clarify that my concern isn't with any court, but rather the Supreme Court. Practically, I see little difference between the Supreme Court striking down a provision and the Supreme Court giving the statute a new meaning in an interpretation; both can have similar effects. For example, in the 1980 Supreme Court decision Mobile v. Bolden, the Court interpreted Section 2 of the VRA as only prohibiting intentional discrimination, which was a radical departure from previous court decisions and caused most claims brought under Section 2 to be dismissed. In the 2006 case Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 5 of the VRA in a way that substantially diverged from decades of understanding, requiring a showing that a discriminatory law had a "retrogressive" purpose instead of any discriminatory purpose. Both of these cases were statutory interpretation cases, yet they had impacts on jurisprudence that rivals that of cases striking down provisions. Given that, why should only constitutional cases receive such a detailed description in the infobox? Furthermore, the degree of detail you suggest giving to constitutional cases is not given to the legislative amendments in the infobox, even though a similar rationale exists. If Congress amends the VRA to create a new coverage formula, should the infobox say something like "Voting Rights Act Amendments of 2014 Public Law 110–145, Congress creates a new Section 4(b) in response to Shelby County v. Holder"? If that same bill were to contain amendments to other provisions, should the infobox also describe the other provisions amended? If we were consistent in these ways, it would make the infobox unwieldy. And I don't see how not including such specific information is a "lie by omission"; if the court case is listed in the appropriate section in the infobox, and discussed in the content of the article, then the relevant information is certainly there, just not in full detail. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Prototime, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but if I read your response correctly, you are advocating for there to be no mention whatsoever in the infobox stating that SCOTUS has declared a section, or even the entire Act (as in the Line Item Veto Act), to be unconstitutional? What is the purpose of the infobox? I always thought the purpose was to impart upon the reader a good high-level overview of the pertinent facts about the subject, but perhaps I was mistaken. Since when did the Supreme Court become so insignificant as to merit nary a mention, but the fact that the bill went through the Judiciary Committee in 1965 is important enough to mention?! Do you really expect the reader to click through to each and every case listed under |SCOTUS cases= (as you know, there are 18 of them listed in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 article) to find this out? So much for high-level overview. And where the entire Act was ruled unconstitutional, as in the Line Item Veto Act, I think we do a disservice to our readers (who are mostly average people, not students of law) to omit that from the infobox.  Grollτech (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
As to "the degree of detail [I] suggest...", I'm not married to the degree of detail, but give us an asterisk, give us anything, for crying out loud.  Grollτech (talk)
fwiw...to the question of Congress' role in the codification - Congress is not in the business of cleaning-up after Judicial interpretations because there is always a chance they will amend the law to "make it" comply with the ruling that had struck it down to begin with. As for "omitted", it is indeed a long-standing, officially defined status when it comes to the laws currently in effect & their codification. The "Notes" section of any division/sub-division of the U.S.C. is where you'd usually find the case citation causing an omitted status to be applied (See the Notes tab in the previous Line-Item Veto link for an example of this kind of citation). If anything, statutory notes is probably the new template parameter that is needed to handle such oddities like this SCOTUS ruling question. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
BTW, I know that Congress doesn't do "cleanup duty"; I was using it as a rhetorical question to make a point. But George Orwell III, I appreciate the suggestion of a |statutory notes= parameter, and think it is a good one. At the end of the day, whether it is noted under |SCOTUS cases=, |statutory notes=, or elsewhere makes little difference to me, as long as there is some standard way of handling it. Like I said before, "My main point is that it needs to go somewhere." Thanks.  Grollτech (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think a parameter called "Statutory Notes" would best suit this information, since the USC statutory notes tend to include many things that are covered elsewhere in the infobox (e.g., amendments; effective dates). I'd suggest the parameter be called "Constitutionality", where Supreme Court cases that strike down provisions (or the entire Act) are listed. While I maintain the view that this will create an inconsistency in the level of detail in the infobox, I will grant that cases striking down provisions do receive special attention in the USC notes, and it might be lacking to not have such cases highlighted in the infobox. Thus, while I'm not particularly happy about the inconsistency, I won't stand in your way, Grolltech, if you want to create a "Constitutionality" parameter. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
For the sake of completeness - First - I didn't realize the Cornell section notes where as incomplete as they are for the Line Item Veto Act. Please refer to the .gov site instead; You'll find Constitutionality a legitimate subsection on that one. I might not have made it clear or assumed most folks already were aware of the fact that the Line Item Veto Act's provisions were written to sunset automatically in 2005 regardless of the SCOTUS ruling taking place prior to that -- so please note that the Line Item Veto Act is not exactly the best mirror example of a statute being struck down to go by here.

Second - here's a link to the list of SCOTUS rulings mentioned in that .gov site's notes section. It's complete thru 2002 but you'd have to check the supplements to get that list updated to reflect any additional rulings from 2002 to 2010. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, here is an updated link to the Acts of Congress held unconstitutional in whole or in part by the Supreme Court of the United States, issued as a part of the 2012 "Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis, and Interpretation - Centennial Edition - Interim" on June 26, 2013 by the Government Printing Office.  Grollτech (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Include an excerpt[edit]

Let's include excerpts in the infobox when key provisions can be quoted.

For example, the infobox for the WARN Act would include the following lines:

| excerpt1 = An employer shall not order a plant closing or mass layoff until the end of a 60-day period after the employer serves written notice. | excerpt1cite = 29 U.S.C. § 2102(a)

Suggestion: Include CFR citation[edit]

Legislation often affects the Code of Federal Regulations as well as the United States Code. For example, the infobox for the WARN Act should include 20 C.F.R. 639 as well as 29 U.S.C. §§ 21012109.

Nice idea, but not practical. Many statutes are the authority for dozens or hundreds of CFR parts. e.g., Clean Air Act; also Federal Aviation Regulations. Moreau1 (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 March 2014[edit] (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC) The house vote link is incorrect. It should be:


The actual tally was 343-86 and six no votes.

The house vote currently on the site is the vote to agree to sending the house and senate bills to confernce committee.

Not done: That change needs to happen on the page where the template is used. Please make the request there. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 March 2014[edit]

The box for Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is misleading, in particular, the section titled "Legislative History". The fact that it passed the House by a vote of 416-0 when it was called the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" is trivial, bordering on irrelevant. There are 6 bullets points, distinctly divided, and because point 3 is "Passed the House on" and point 4 is "Passed the Senate as", to the average reader (who didn't otherwise know) it looks like the ACA itself passed the House 416-0. (Bullet points shouldn't rely on previous bullets points for their meaning.) The factoid that it passed the House 416-0 as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 could/should be included parenthetically in bullet point 1. The section should go like this:

  • Introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) on September 17, 2009. (Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0))
  • Committee consideration by: Ways and Means
  • Passed the Senate after amendment as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" on December 24, 2009 (60–39)
  • Passed the House with Senate amendment on March 21, 2010 (219–212)
  • Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010

The ACA is a highly partisan, hotly contested bill. The two HISTORIC votes that really mean something are the 60-39 and 219-212. These should be featured most prominently. Trailspark (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Trailspark: Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Infobox U.S. legislation}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. That page is Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

State legislation templates[edit]

I didn't even know they existed until now, but {{California legislation}} and {{New York legislation}} could use some help. (There may be other state templates?) A quick Google search for the full name of the NY SAFE Act (a piece of highly publicized New York legislation) shows that both the NY Senate and Assembly have separate bill numbers and websites, and the Senate tracks both on its website, so that will have to be dealt with. I'm still trying to figure out if we will be able to link to the chaptered law.

I think state laws are the next logical step, the current lack of the templates' visibility and usage gives us the ability to "start fresh" instead of dealing with legacy parameters and the like, and the expertise of this template's editors would be greatly appreciated. Int21h (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 April 2014[edit]

There's a typo in the final Public Law citation on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_Species_Act.

The line that reads

Pub.L. 97–3041, 96 Stat. 1411, enacted October 13, 1982

Should read

Pub.L. 97–304, 96 Stat. 1411, enacted October 13, 1982

I have no idea how templates work, but this is a simple factual error so I figured I'd point it out. (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Infobox U.S. legislation}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. This will be at Talk:Endangered Species Act. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 May 2014[edit]

This info box is wider than it needs to be. It's wider then most other side info boxes and looks a bit awkward and nonuniform as a result. My request is that this box be narrowed to the width of others. Thank you. Drdpw (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 September 2014[edit]

Recently, an editor changed (with this edit [1]) the field that was formerly labeled "Supreme Court cases" to "SCOTUS cases". I request that this field be returned to the label "Supreme Court cases." Lay readers are unlikely to understand what the acronym "SCOTUS" refers to, and they should not be required to click on the wikilink to find out. The term "Supreme Court" is more recognizable and understandable for the average reader. And as far as I can tell, the change was not discussed before it was made. Thanks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 00:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- I restored the proper name instead of the acronym (as well as the informal name) but kept the wikilink back to United States Supreme Court. I think this preserves the previous contributor's overall intent/wishes while respecting your point on clarity for the typical reader (not to mention the apparent lack of discussion prior to making the change).

Is this resolution suitable for you, Prototime? -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks a bunch, George. That's much better. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I'd also like to request that the text under the "Major Amendments" and "United States Supreme Court cases" sections of the template be returned to left-justification. The text under every other section of the template is left-justified, but for some reason, an editor changed the text in those two sections to center-justified (with the same edit as before, [2], again without discussion). The contrast this creates is jarring, and it interrupts the flow of the template. Furthermore, it messes up the use of bullets in those sections to delineate between separate items (e.g., see the "Major amendments" section of the template on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 article). Thanks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Also  Done. Left text-alignment restored per no discussion for this change and the effects it might of had. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again, George. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 00:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 October 2014[edit]

The Legislative History for The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 states "Introduced in the House as H.R. 3103 by Bill Archer (D-TX) on March 18, 1996" Other sources including his own wikipedia page state that William Reynolds Archer was a Republican from 1969 on. Please change his affiliation from D-TX to R-TX. (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to change in the template itself. This would just be a parameter passed to the template. The change needs to be made to the article Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act itself. I'll do that. Thanks for reporting this. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 November 2014[edit]

Effective date is stated "January 1, 1969" - but this is a year before it became law. Since the text of the law doesn't specify otherwise, NEPA would have become effective when signed: January 1, 1970 Paugus (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Infobox U.S. legislation}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 February 2015[edit]

Passed on the house NOT houe (S missing!) (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Infobox U.S. legislation}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Wherever this spelling error occurs, it's not in this template. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 February 2015[edit]

Remove or Capitalize 'the' on 'the 105th United States Congress' / Grammar. Number203 (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't abbreviate "Public Law" as "PL"[edit]

I suggest that the template be changed so "Public Law" is abbreviated as "Pub.L.", not "PL" as is currently the case. This could cause confusion with private laws, abbreviated "Pvt.L.". - (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)