Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Enabling act: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Added Enabling Act for Louisiana as well as link to the Act.
 
(32 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{Short description|Act of law enabling an agency such as an executive branch to take actions}}
{{For|the act establishing [[Adolf Hitler]] as dictator of [[Nazi Germany]]<!--Don't add more links here-->|Enabling Act of 1933}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=JulyJune 20132023}}
An '''enabling act''' is a piece of [[legislation]] by which a [[legislative body]] grants an entity which depends on it (for authorization or [[Legitimacy (family lawpolitical)|legitimacy]]) for the [[delegation]] of the legislative body's power to take certain actions.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Definition of Enabling legislation |url=https://www.legalchoices.org.uk/dictionary/enabling-legislation |access-date=2023-07-27 |website=Legal Choices |language=en}}</ref> For example, enabling acts often establish [[government agencies]] to carry out specific government policies in a modern nation. The effects of enabling acts from different times and places vary widely.
 
== Germany ==
The German word for an enabling act is ''{{lang|de|Ermächtigungsgesetz''}} ({{literal translation|empowering law}}). It usually refers to the [[Enabling Act of 1933|enabling act of 23 March 1933]] which became a cornerstone of [[Gleichschaltung|Adolf Hitler's seizure of power]].
 
=== Acts of 1914–1927 ===
The first enabling act is dated from 4 August 1914 just after the [[German entry into World War I]]. With the vote of the [[Social Democratic Party of Germany|Social Democratic Party]], the [[Reichstag (German Empire)|Reichstag]] (the [[German Empire]]'s parliament) agreed to give the government certain powers to take the necessary economic measures during the war. Such enabling acts were also common in other countries. The Reichstag had to be informed, and had the right to abolish a decree based on the enabling act. This ensured that the government used its rights with care and only in rare cases was a decree abolished. The parliament retained its right to make law.<ref>{{cite book |first=Ernst Rudolf |last=Huber: ''|title=Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte seit 1789''. Vol.Band V: Weltkrieg, Revolution und Reichserneuerung |language=de |trans-title=History of the German constitution since 1789. Vol. V: World war, revolution and imperial renewal |publisher=[[Kohlhammer Verlag|Kohlhammer]], |location=Stuttgart et al. |year=1978, p. |pages=37, 62–67.}}</ref>
 
In the [[Weimar Republic]] (1919–1933), there were several enabling acts: three in 1919, one in 1920 and, one in 1921, three in 1923, one in 1926, and one in 1927. The enabling act on 24 February 1923, originally limited until 1 June but extended until 31 October, empowered the cabinet to resist the [[Occupationoccupation of the Ruhr]].<ref>{{cite book | title= Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies | first= Clinton Lawrence | last= Rossiter | year= 1948 | page= 45 | publisher= Transaction Publishers | isbn= 978-0-7658-0975-9 | url= https://books.google.com/books?id=rsWXgBcTmbwC&pg=PA45 }}</ref> There was an enabling act on 13 October 1923 and an enabling act on 8 December 1923 that would last until the dissolution of the Reichstag on 13 March 1924.<ref>{{cite book | title= Constitutional Failure: Carl Schmitt in Weimar | first= Ellen | last= Kennedy | year= 2004 | page= 150 | publisher= [[Duke University Press]] | isbn= 978-0-8223-3243-5 | url= https://books.google.com/books?id=fqYzPDDIrJMC&pg=PA150 }}</ref>
 
Most of them had a temporal limit but only vague thematic limits. On the basis of these acts, a vast number of decrees were signed with enormous importance for social and economic life, the judicial system, and taxes. For example, the reform of [[Currency of Germany|German currency]] in response to [[Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic|hyperinflation]], the merger of the ''{{lang|de|[[Länderbahnen]]''}} into the {{lang|la|[[Deutsche Reichsbahn]]}} national railway system, and [[Unemployment benefits|unemployment pay]] were settled via such decrees ({{lang|la|Vollmacht-Verordnungen}}).<ref>{{cite book |first=Ernst Rudolf |last=Huber: ''|title=Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte seit 1789''. Vol.Band VI: Die Weimarer Reichsverfassung. Verlag|language=de W.|trans-title=History Kohlhammer,of Stuttgartthe etGerman al.constitution 1981,since pp1789. 438–449Vol. VI: The Weimar Constitution |publisher=[[Kohlhammer Verlag|Kohlhammer]] |location=Stuttgart |year=1978 |pages=438–449}}</ref> The [[Emminger Reform]] of 4 January 1924 abolished the [[jury]] as [[trier of fact]] and replaced it with a mixed system of [[judge]]s and [[lay judge]]s in [[judiciary of Germany|Germany's judiciary]] which still exists today.
 
These enabling acts were unconstitutional, as the Weimar constitution did not provide the possibility that one organ (parliament) would transfer its rights to another one (executive government). But constitutional experts accepted them because they came into existence with a two-thirds majority, the same majority as for constitutional changes. The government had succeeded in gathering those majorities by threatening to call for presidential emergency dictatorial decrees (usually called ''{{lang|de|Notverordnungen''}}), otherwise. In March 1924, the Reichstag wanted to discuss the abolition of decrees (which was granted by the enabling act of February that year). President [[Friedrich Ebert]] dismissed parliament to avoid discussion and abolishments. {{Citation needed|date=November 2018}}
 
In later years, governments failed to gather two-thirds of majorities since the radicalization of the [[Conservative Revolution|revolutionary national-conservative]] [[German National People's Party]] in 1928 and the [[Adolf Hitler's rise to power|rise of the NaziNational Socialist Workers' Party]] (Nazi Party) after 1930. Chancellor [[Heinrich Brüning]] (1930–1932) worked with presidential decrees which replaced most of the ordinary legislature, eventually.
 
The enabling acts had set a poor and dangerous example, but for the government, they had the advantage that they appeared less unconstitutional and dictatorial compared to presidential decrees. Parliament could prefer those acts because they were valid only for a limited time and included mostly a kind of cooperation (e.g. via a special house committee).
Line 22:
=== Enabling Act of 1933 ===
{{Main|Enabling Act of 1933}}
The German word ''{{lang|de|Ermächtigungsgesetz''}} usually refers to the [[Enabling Act of 1933]], officially ''{{lang|de|Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich''}} ("Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the State"). It became a cornerstone of [[Adolf Hitler]]'s [[Nazi seizure of power|seizure of power]]. Unlike, for example, [[Wilhelm Marx]]'s enabling act of December 1923, Hitler's Act:
 
* was limited to four years, not several months;
* enabled government not only to create decrees, but even laws and treaties with other countries;
* theseallowed laws couldto deviate from the [[Weimar Constitution]];
* theredid werenot noimpose thematic limits;
* neitherdid not provide a right to control or abolish these laws, not for any house committee nor the [[Reichsrat (Germany)|Reichsrat]] (the common organ of the [[states of Germany]]) had the right to control, or to abolish these laws.
In comparison to the situation of the 1920s, Hitler's [[Nazi Party]] and his coalition partner the [[German National People's Party|DNVP]] did have a parliamentary majority since the [[March 1933 German federal election|general elections of 3 March 1933]].<ref>Sylvia Eilers: ''Ermächtigungsgesetz und militärischer Ausnahmezustand zur Zeit des ersten Kabinetts von Reichskanzler Wilhelm Marx 1923/1924'', PhD thesis Cologne 1987, Cologne 1988, p. 163.</ref> Those elections and then the voting in the [[Reichstag (Weimar Republic)|Reichstag]] were carried out in a climate of intimidation and violence carried out by [[Weimar paramilitary groups|right-wing paramilitary groups]] such as the Nazi ''[[Sturmabteilung]]''. On 23 March, the [[Communist Party of Germany]] were already banned and imprisoned, the Social Democrat delegates were the only ones present in the Reichstag to vote against, while the Centre and moderate-right parties voted yes in order to prevent "worse".▼
 
▲In comparison to the situation of the 1920s, Hitler's [[Nazi Party]] and his coalition partner the [[German National People's Party|DNVP]] did have a parliamentary majority since the [[March 1933 German federal election|general elections of 3 March 1933]].<ref>{{cite thesis |first=Sylvia |last=Eilers: ''|title=Ermächtigungsgesetz und militärischer Ausnahmezustand zur Zeit des ersten Kabinetts von Reichskanzler Wilhelm Marx 1923/1924'', |language=de |trans-title=Enabling Act and military state of emergency at the time of the first cabinet of Chancellor Wilhelm Marx 1923/1924 |type=inaugural dissertation<!--not "PhD thesis" Colognein 1987,the CologneGerman 1988,system: p.the degree is not called that--> |location=Cologne |year=1987–1988 |page=163.}}</ref> Those elections and then the voting in the [[Reichstag (Weimar Republic)|Reichstag]] were carried out in a climate of intimidation and violence carried out by [[Weimar paramilitary groups|right-wing paramilitary groups]] such as the Nazi ''{{lang|de|[[Sturmabteilung]]''}}. On 23 March, the [[Communist Party of Germany]] werewas already banned and its delegates imprisoned, the Social Democrat delegates were the only ones present in the Reichstag to vote against, while the Centre Party and moderatecentre-right parties voted yes in order to prevent "worse".
The Enabling Act of 1933 was renewed by a purely [[Reichstag (Nazi Germany)|Nazi Reichstag]] in 1937 and 1939. In 1941 and 1943, it was renewed by decree, though without temporal limit in 1943. Although it states that it is valid only for the duration of the current Hitler government of 1933, it remained in force even after major changes of ministers. In any case, Hitler called the cabinet together only very rarely after the first months of 1933. The last cabinet meeting happened in 1937. He preferred to govern via decrees and personal orders.▼
 
▲The Enabling Act of 1933 was renewed by a purely [[Reichstag (Nazi Germany)|Nazi Reichstag]] in 1937 and 1939. In 1941 and 1943, it was renewed by decree, though without temporala time limit in 1943. Although it states that it is valid only for the duration of the current Hitler government of 1933, it remained in force even after major changes of ministers. In any case, Hitler called the cabinet together only very rarely after the first months of 1933. The last cabinet meeting happened in 1937. He preferred to govern via decrees and personal orders.
 
=== Federal Republic ===
WithFollowing itsthe enactment in 1949 of the [[Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany|German Basic Law]] ({{lang|de|Grundgesetz}}), there have been no enabling acts in the [[Federal Republic of [[Germany]]. The constitution states that it can be changed only by an explicit alteration of the phrasing.
 
== United Kingdom ==
=== Act of 1919 ===
{{Main|Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919}}
The [[Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919]] ([[9 & 10 Geo. 5]]. c. 76) gave a considerable degree of self-government to the [[Church of England]] while retaining overall parliamentary supervision. Before its passing, almost all adjustments to the legal structure of the Church of England had involved getting a specific bill through Parliament.<ref>{{cite dictionary |last1=Cross &|first1=F. L. |last2=Livingstone |first2=E.'' A. |dictionary=The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church'' OUP:1971,|publisher=Oxford art.University Press |year=1971 '''|title=Enabling Act, The'''}}</ref> It took nine sessions to approve the salary of the [[Archdeacon of Cornwall]],<ref>{{cite book |last=Iremonger, |first=F. A. ''|title=William Temple'', OUP:|publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1948, p.|page=223}}</ref> and of the 217 bills introduced into the House of Commons between 1880 and 1913, only 33 passed into law for lack of parliamentary time, among the casualties being the bills to establish new dioceses.<ref>{{cite book |last=Garbett, |first=Cyril. ''|title=The Claims of the Church of England'' |publisher=Hodder & Stoughton: |year=1947, pp|pages=192ff.192f}}</ref>
 
The Actact gave the newly established ''[[Church Assembly]]'', predecessor of the [[General Synod of the Church of England|General Synod]], power to prepare and present to Parliament measures which could either be approved or rejected, but not modified by either House. Before being voted on, the proposals were examined by an [[Ecclesiastical Committee]] of both Houses which reported on their effects and implications. Once approved in Parliament, the measure became law on receiving the royal assent.<ref>{{cite dictionary |first1=F. L. |last1=Cross &|first2=E. LivingstoneA. ''|last2=Livingstone |dictionary=The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church'' OUP:1971,|publisher=Oxford art.University '''Press |year=1971 |title=Church Assembly'''}}</ref>
 
The Actact continues to apply today to the [[General Synod of the Church of England]] which, as a result of the [[Synodical Government Measure of 1969]], replaced the Church Assembly with the aim of achieving full integration of the laity and eliminating the complications caused by the dual control of the [[Convocations of Canterbury and York]], and the Assembly. All the Assembly's powers passed to the new synod along with many of those of the Convocations.<ref>{{cite dictionary |first1=F. L. |last1=Cross &|first2=E. LivingstoneA. ''|last2=Livingstone |dictionary=The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church'' OUP:|publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1971, art. "|title=Synodical Government"}}</ref>
 
=== Proposals ===
In the 1930s, both Sir [[Stafford Cripps]] and [[Clement Attlee]] advocated an enabling act to allow a future [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour]] government to pass [[socialism|socialist]] legislation which wouldcould not be amended by normal parliamentary procedures and the [[House of Lords]]. According to Cripps, his "Planning and Enabling Act" would not be able to be repealed, and the orders made by the government using the act would not be allowed discussion in [[United Kingdom Parliament|Parliament]]. Cripps also suggested measures against the [[British monarchy|monarchy]], but quickly dropped the idea.<ref>{{Cite webbook |url=httphttps://www.marxist.com/hbtucause-labour-history-british-trade-unionism/chapter_15road-to-wigan-pier.htmlhtm |first=Rob |last=Sewell |date=10 November 2003 |title=In the Cause of Labour: A History of British Trade Unionism |chapter=Road to Wigan Pier |via=In Defence of Marxism |access-date=298 AprilJune 20082024}}</ref>
 
During the [[Great Depression in the United Kingdom|Great Depression]] and [[World War II]], [[Oswald Mosley]]'s [[British Union of Fascists]] pledged to enact an enabling act establishing a [[Corporatism|corporatist]] [[dictatorship]] if it were allowed to form a government. It would have totally [[Nationalization|nationalized]] the economy into a [[State-owned enterprise|national corporation]] with 25 affiliates represented in the government through a reformed [[House of Lords]], abolished the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]]' legislative authority, and allowingallowed a royally-appointed [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|Prime Minister]] and [[Cabinet of the United Kingdom|Cabinet]] to rule by decree through [[Order in Council|Orders in Council]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Love |first=Gary |date=July 2007 |title=`'What's the Big Idea?': Oswald Mosley, the British Union of Fascists and Generic Fascism |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022009407078334 |journal=Journal of Contemporary History |language=en |volume=42 |issue=3 |pages=450-451450–451 |doi=10.1177/0022009407078334 |s2cid=144884526 |issn=0022-0094 |ref=none |via=Sage Journals}}</ref> In 1966 [[Oswald Mosley]] advocated a [[National unity government|government of national unity]] drawn from "the professions, from science, from the unions and the managers, from businessmen, the housewives, from the services, from the universities, and even from the best of the politicians". This coalition would be a "hard centre" oriented one which would also get Parliament to pass an Enabling Act in order to stop what Mosley described as "time-wasting obstructionism of present procedure". He also claimed that Parliament would always retain the power to dismiss his government by a [[motion of censure]] if its policies failed or if it attempted to "override basic British freedoms".<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.oswaldmosley.com/misc_documents/ombfe.htm|title=Oswald Mosley, Briton, Fascist, European|access-date=29 April 2008|publisher=OswaldMosley.com|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080402004743/http://www.oswaldmosley.com/misc_documents/ombfe.htm|archive-date=2 April 2008|df=dmy-all}}</ref>
 
=== Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 ===
{{Main|Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006}}
In early 2006 the highly controversial{{Citation needed|date=November 2019}} yet little-publicised [[Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill]] was introduced to Parliament. This Bill, if enacted as introduced, would have enabled Government ministers to amend or repeal any legislation (including the L&RR Bill itself), subject to vague and highly subjective restraints, by decree and without recourse to Parliament. The Bill was variously described as the ''"Abolition of Parliament Bill''"<ref>[http{{cite news |url=https://www.timesonlinethetimes.co.ukcom/article/0,,6who-2049791,00.htmlwants-the-abolition-of-parliament-bill-hx2c6fx3w9h |title=Who wants the Abolition of Parliament Bill?] |first=David |last=Howarth |work=The Times, |date=21 February 2006}}</ref> and "of first-class constitutional significance &nbsp;... [and would] markedly alter the respective and long standing roles of minister and Parliament in the legislative process".<ref>{{cite news |first=Daniel |last=Finkelstein |title=How I woke up to a nightmare plot to steal centuries of law and liberty |url = httphttps://www.timesonlinethetimes.co.ukcom/article/0,,6how-2040625,00.htmli-woke-up-to-a-nightmare-plot-to-steal-centuries-of-law-and-liberty-jl883wvx5nn|work=[[The Times]] |date=15 February 2006 |access-date=16 January 2007 |location=London }}</ref> The Bill was, in essence, an Enabling Act in all but name. After some amendment by the government and Lords, the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill received [[Royal Assent]] on 8 November 2006.<ref>[{{cite web |url=http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/news/2006/061109.asp |title=Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill receives Royal Assent] {{webarchive|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061211104109/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/news/2006/061109.asp |archive-date=11 December 2006 }}, |id=Press release CAB066/06 from the |author=[[Cabinet Office]], |date=8 November 2006.}}</ref> Amendments included removing its ability to modify itself or the [[Human Rights Act 1998]]; most of the other modifications were much more subjectively defined.
 
=== Great Repeal Bill ===
{{Main|European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018}}
The [[European Union (Withdrawal) Bill]] of 2017, also known as the Great Repeal Bill, has come under fire from critics because it envisions giving the [[Government of the United Kingdom]] unprecedented powers to rewrite any aspect of [[Law of the United Kingdom|British laws]] imported from [[European Union law]] when [[Brexit|Britain leaves the EU]], without consulting Parliament. Such powers, effected by clauses called [[Henry VIII clauses]], have been controversially used in the past, but usually only in respect of very limited areas of law.
 
== United States ==
In the United States at the national level, an "enabling act" is a [[statute]] [[wikt:enacted|enacted]] by the [[United States Congress]] authorizing the people of a [[Organized incorporated territories of the United States|territory]] to frame a proposed [[State constitution (United States)|state constitution]] as a step towards [[admission to the Union]]. Each act details the mechanism by which the territory will be admitted as a state following ratification of their constitution and election of state officers.
 
Enabling acts can contain restrictions, such as the prohibition of [[Mormonism and polygamy|polygamy]] in the [[Utah]], [[Arizona]], [[New Mexico]], and [[Oklahoma]] acts.<ref>{{cite web |last= Forte |first= David F. |title= Essays on Article IV: New States Clause |url= http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/125/new-states-clause |publisher= The Heritage Foundation |access-date= December 1, December 2015}}</ref> [[Nevada]] was required to abolish [[Slavery in the United States|slavery]] and [[involuntary servitude]], except [[Penal labor in the United States|as punishment for a crime]]; to guarantee [[Freedom of religion in the United States|freedom of religious practice]] to all inhabitants; and to agree that all [[Federal lands|public lands owned by the federal government]] at the time of statehood would be retained after admission.<ref>http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/Research/Library/Documents/HistDocs/1864Act.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=March 2022}}</ref> The applicant territory then submits its proposed constitution to Congress, which either accepts it or requires changes. For example, in 1866, Congress refused the proposed [[Nebraska]] constitution because it limited [[suffrage]] to white males. Enabling Acts approved by Congress include:
* [[Enabling Act of 1802]], for the formation of [[Ohio]] from the [[Northwest Territory]]
* [[Enabling Act of 1811]], for the formation of [[Louisiana]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_(Louisiana)|title=Enabling Act}}</ref> from the [[Territory of Orleans]]
Line 67 ⟶ 65:
* [[s:Utah Enabling Act, 1894|Enabling Act of 1894]], for the formation of Utah
* [[Oklahoma Enabling Act|Enabling Act of 1906]] for the formation of Oklahoma from [[Oklahoma Territory]] and [[Indian Territory]]
* [[Enabling Act of 1910]], for the admission of Arizona<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.azleg.state.az.us/const/enabling.pdf|title=Enabling Act|access-date=29 April 2008}}</ref> and New Mexico<ref>[http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/lcsdocs/163941.pdf Piecemal Amendment of the Constitution of New Mexico 1911 to 2006] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120219195607/http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/lcsdocs/163941.pdf |date=19 February 2012 }} Seventeenth Revision, January 2007, New Mexico Legislative Council Service</ref>
 
Although the use of an enabling act is a traditional historic practice, a number of territories have drafted constitutions for submission to Congress absent an enabling act and were subsequently admitted, and the act of Congress admitting Kentucky to the Union was passed before the constitution of Kentucky was drafted.
Line 75 ⟶ 73:
 
== Venezuela ==
In [[Venezuela]], enabling laws allowing the president to [[rule by decree]] in selected matters were granted to [[Rómulo Betancourt]] (1959),<ref>Crisp (1998:146–7)</ref> [[Carlos Andrés Pérez]] (1974),<ref name="polar">{{Cite web|url=http://www.fpolar.org.ve/Encarte/fasciculo24/fasc2402.html|title=Historia de Venezuela en Imágenes. Capítulo VIII 1973 /1983. La Gran Venezuela|access-date=21 January 2007|publisher=Fundación Polar|work=La experiencia democrática 1958 / 1998|language=es|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070206000939/http://www.fpolar.org.ve/Encarte/fasciculo24/fasc2402.html|archive-date=6 February 2007|df=dmy-all}}</ref> [[Jaime Lusinchi]] (1984),<ref name="globovision20061128">{{Cite web|url=http://www.globovision.com/news.php?nid=43974|title=El tema: Historia democrática venezolana|access-date=21 January 2007|publisher=[[Globovisión]]|date=28 November 2006|language=es|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070207031450/http://www.globovision.com/news.php?nid=43974|archive-date=7 February 2007|df=dmy-all}}</ref> [[Ramón José Velásquez]] (1993)<ref name="cidob">{{Cite web|url=http://www.cidob.org/es/documentacion/biografias_lideres_politicos/america_del_sur/venezuela/ramon_jose_velasquez_mujica|title=Ramón José Velásquez Mújica|access-date=21 January 2007|publisher=Centro de Investigación de Relaciones Internacionales y desarrollo|date=21 September 2006|language=es}}</ref> and [[Rafael Caldera]] (1994).<ref>Crisp, Brian F. (1998), "[https://books.google.com/books?id=2k9iI91GVt4C&pg=PA150 Presidential Decree Authority in Venezuela]", in John M. Carey and Matthew Soberg Shugart (eds, 1998), ''Executive decree authority'', [[Cambridge University Press]]. p150</ref> Pérez issued over 3,000 decrees under the powers delegated to him.<ref>Crisp (1998:168)</ref>
 
In mid-2000, a similar law enabled [[Hugo Chávez]] to legislate on issues related to the economy, reorganization of government ministries and crime for one year. Chávez did not take advantage of this act until shortly before its expiration, when he passed 49 decrees in rapid succession, many of them highly controversial.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1529|title=Land for People not for Profit in Venezuela|access-date=29 April 2008|publisher=venezuelanalysis.com|date=23 August 2005}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://buscador.eluniversal.com/2004/07/22/en_pol_art_22A477445.shtml|title=Attorney General's Office admits that Venezuelan government exceeded its authority in enacting Enabling Law|access-date=29 April 2008|publisher=eluniversal.com|date=22 July 2004|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080404044043/http://buscador.eluniversal.com/2004/07/22/en_pol_art_22A477445.shtml|archive-date=4 April 2008|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/wha/8229.htm|title=Venezuela|access-date=29 April 2008|publisher=[[U.S Department of State]]|date=4 March 2002}}</ref> In 2007, a new [[Enabling law in Venezuela|enabling act]] granted President Chávez powers for 18 months, giving the president the ability to rule by decree over certain economic, social, territorial, defense and scientific matters as well as control over transportation, regulations for popular participation and rules for governing state institutions.<ref name="BBC20070119">{{Cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6277379.stm|title=Rule by decree passed for Chavez |access-date=19 January 2007|workpublisher=[[BBC News]]| date=19 January 2007}}</ref>
 
== See also ==
* [[2017 Turkish constitutional referendum]], which some media outlets have compared to an "enabling act".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/franck-d-vell/does-turkey-s-ongoing-purge-resemble-1933-enabling-act-in-nazi-germ |title=Does Turkey's ongoing purge resemble the 1933 Enabling Act in Nazi Germany? |last=Düvell |first=Franck |date=28 March 28, 2017 |website=opendemocracy.net |publisher=OpenDemocracy |access-date=17 April 17, 2017 |quote=The constitutional reform in Turkey of 2016 and the conditions under which it is being pushed through recall legal procedures like the Enabling Act 1933 by which the Nazis came to power in Germany in the 1930s. This has been noted by many international and in particular German, Austrian and Swiss media including ‘Die'Die Tagesschau’Tagesschau', ‘Der'Der Standard’Standard' and ‘Neue'Neue Zuricher Zeitung’Zeitung'. }}</ref>
 
== References ==
{{Reflist|2}}
 
{{Authority control}}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_act"