Talk:Enabling act

The US Constitution specifies what rights the Congress has - but is the Constitution the enabling act, or would that be just the section of the document that specifically grants the rights? I am not a lawyer - any official answer would be appreciated. unsigned comment by 66.129.44.244 on 12:44, 5 June 2006

I doubt you'll get an "official answer" since, hmmm, the only officials who could give a definitive response for the USA would be the Supreme Ct, and they are notoriously lax in keeping their wikipedia information current. However, an unofficial response would be that the US Constitution is NOT an enabling act; it is an agreement between the States to create a national government of limited powers. While that involves somethng like a delegation of the states' powers, no authority considers a constitution an enabling act. Instead, legislation such as the examples in the article are what the term enabling act refer to. rewinn 04:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

My local county zoning board calls mentions "Enabling Clause" or "Enabling Statute". I'm not sure which term is correct - clause, statute or act? Do they all mean the same thing? Should there be a disambiguation page? unsigned comment by 66.129.44.244 on 12:44, 5 June 2006

I wouldn't make a different page for those terms, without strong documentation of a distinction. In general, they are about the same thing, although it's possible there may be distinctions. rewinn 04:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Act, Statute, and Clause are different, but I don't have my dictionary handy. I'll be going to my local Public Library next week -- do you want me to look it up in their thick Webster's? Also, I've heard that someone invented a box with a typewriter screwed onto it, and like our favorite Magic 8-Ball toy, you just type in your question and like magic! it gives you an answer back! They call it "Gurgling on the InnerTubes (InterWebs?)" or something like that. You might try that. 63.152.30.138 (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add a stub here. {Slash | Talk} 23:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Johnny ran quickly to the

QED 63.152.30.138 (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've merged in all the stubs, since they were not making good articles on their own. The US specific article was just a list of other articles. The UK article was about proposed enabling acts, and did not read as a stand alone article. The Venezuela article was still a stub, and does not appear to be expandable as was. --Barberio 19:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fixed all articles pointing to Enabling act (Venezuela) but the discusion at Talk:Enabling act (Venezuela) should be merged here before deleting. There is also Enabling Act (Venezuela) (uppercase "A", nothing links there) and Ley Habilitante (only a talk page links there). These redirects can be deleted. JRSP 20:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

JRSP, what is your objection to http://www.cdfe.org/ and why did you delete the general description of what an enabling act is ? Sandy 02:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Strongly biased. Unnecessary in any case, in fact I would leave only the DoS source, all others are superfluous. The context paragraph was too long for so little material, I think the wikilink to Enabling act is enough, all the info in the deleted paragraph is there. Actually, the whole stub is just a subset of "Enabling Act" and it has been almost 3 weeks in that state, it seems there is little interest in the article JRSP 05:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I removed some information from the introduction that is duplicated in the body of the article, because it did not refer to the content of the article generally, and had lead to confusion. It had also asserted that a particular use was the most famous use, which was neither true nor sourced. rewinn 04:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

While it seems natural to put Germany first, due to alphabetic ordering, there is a difficulty in that as as result the 1st instance of an enabling act is historically vile. This tends to denigrate later, non-controversial uses such as by the United States in forming states. I don't have a handy solution other than to reverse the merge and let short articles be short articles. rewinn 04:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

They didn't really stand alone as short articles as they were, because of the lack of expansion, particularly the 'use in the US' which could only be expanded as a list, and 'use in the UK' which lacked any kind of context as it's own article. --Barberio 12:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's not just alphabetical, there's als othe fact that Hitler's enabling act was easily the most famous and important one in history. When somebody searches for "enabling act" on Wikipedia, that's usually what they'll be looking for. 71.203.209.0 20:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is only a paragraph or so on the US version of enabling acts, but I find the subject interesting. Firstly, the US version should probably not be here, and should have its own article, as it is very different from what is otherwise refered to as an enabling act. It is similar in name only. Also, from what little information is given, an act authorizes the people of a territory to frame a constitution, and lays down the requirements that must be met as a prerequisite to statehood. What role does Congress have in the actual drafting of the new states constitution? Can it set requirements that the constitution must meet? - 58.161.225.127 04:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Enabling act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061211104109/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/news/2006/061109.asp to http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/news/2006/061109.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Enabling act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080402004743/http://www.oswaldmosley.com/misc_documents/ombfe.htm to http://www.oswaldmosley.com/misc_documents/ombfe.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206000939/http://www.fpolar.org.ve/Encarte/fasciculo24/fasc2402.html to http://www.fpolar.org.ve/Encarte/fasciculo24/fasc2402.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070207031450/http://www.globovision.com/news.php?nid=43974 to http://www.globovision.com/news.php?nid=43974

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps Hungary should be mentioned on this article