Positive law, private law & the Federal Register

[Guest]

Here's a pattern I've seen repeated. Congress will pass some piece of legislation purporting something like "all persons must xyz by midnight Nov..." Then someone starts shouting "HOW CAN THEY DO THIS?" an invariably starts a "write to your Congressperson today" campaign.

But the reaction among the suitors is very different. That reaction is almost like "Oh no big deal, it's not positive law; doesn't apply to me." This area of positive law - published in the Federal Register - is not entirely clear in my mind. I'd appreciate if you suitors could elaborate on this.

[David Merrill]

One way to get a grasp on it is through the Titles themselves.

[Rock Anthony]

A brocure, titled POSITIVE LAW CODIFICATION IN THE UNITED STATES, is something that may shed some light on positive law in America.

From the second page of the brochure:

Positive law titles

The United States Code is divided into subject matter titles. Some are "positive law" titles and some are "non-positive law" titles. The difference is this:

A positive law title of the United States Code is - itself - a Federal statute.

A non-positive law title of the United States Code is an editorial compilation of Federal statutes.

For example, title 10, United States Code, "Armed Forces", is a positive law title because the title, per se, has been explicitly enacted.

Alternatively, title 42, United States Code, "The Public Health and Welfare", is a non-positive law title. The Federal statutes set out editorially in title 42have been explicitly enacted, but title 42, per se, has not.

Provisions set out in non-positive law titles of the United States Code may vary slightly from the precise language enacted into law; cross references are adapted and stylistic changes are made in order to facilitate the integration of Federal statutory provisions into the United States Code. By contrast, a positive law title of the United States Code constitutes the precise statutory language enacted into law.

[David Merrill]

Thank you Rock;


I am still reading my definition into that brochure. If non-positive law contains variations from the federal statute, then non-positive law cannot apply out of the districts. - Except of course by voluntary submission, or in other words signature contract/endorsement. This is why for Title 31 - the bankers' code - to become positive law, Congress had to coerce parity of US notes with Fed Notes by renaming them United States currency notes at .

Read the notes:

In the section, the words “United States currency notes” are substituted for “United States notes” for clarity and consistency in the revised title.

Thanks for linking that brochure though - it is a great addition to disk!

[Trust Guy]

Indeed , thanks for the file Rock .

Would suggest everyone on the Board down this and read it through at least once . The question of “Positive v Non-Positive” will come up regularly in Ones discussions in law . In fact , I have someone to send this to now .