Talk:Enrolled Bill doctrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Courts questioning the doctrine?

I added some requests for cites regarding the statements that courts are "questioning" the "rigid application of [the] doctrine". The sources provided—at least in the excerpts from them that are included in the article—do not support those statements.

After Famspear added a request for a source backing up the claim that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had yielded to pressure by changing the doctrine, an editor replaced that statement with the following: "A number of courts have questioned a rigid application of this doctrine and have suggested other approaches.", then gave quotes from two cases as an example. Neither of the quotes provided shows the court as "suggesting another approach". In the Kentucky case, the court simply said the rule was an automatic assumption—an assumption which could be overcome with very convincing evidence. No new approach is suggested there.

For the Pennsylvania case, two sentences are quoted. Neither suggests a new approach. And neither on its face shows that the court is limiting the doctrine. The first restates the doctrine. The second says that "it would be a serious dereliction . . . to deliberately ignore a clear constitutional violation."—but that quote alone does not say that the court is limiting the doctrine, since it doesn't mention what would constitute "ignor[ing] a clear constitutional violation". We have no context to determine that the second quote is actually referring to the first. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 19:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? The default rule has historically been narrowly construed--courts did not look beyond the enrolled bill, ever. Showing that the courts of two states have applied a broader approach clearly represents a change. One can quibble that the opinions don't use the words "we now suggest that..." But it is not uncommon usage in legal scholarship to characterize a departure from prior authority as suggesting a new approch.

I do, however, totally agree with Famspear that the "court yielding to pressure" bit could use a citation.

Xlation 21:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)