Talk:Enabling act

United States

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)

Agreed - the US examples referenced are not enabling acts as defined by this article, they just happen to use the same terminology in the title of the legislation. Murr1321 (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Hungary?

Perhaps Hungary should be mentioned on this article

The Rules Enabling Act of June 19, 1934

This Enabling Act completely revamped our court systems in the United States. First, it moved the focus of our courts from "unalienable rights" to "rules of the court" Second, this act united common law with equity law. This has led to common law being abrogated by equity law. Third, it nullified all other rules and laws in conflict with the rules of the court. This put the act in contradiction to our constitution. Fourth, the seventh amendment was violated by establishing administrative courts that do not support the seventh amendment. Fifth,the word "substantive" has NEVER been defined. According to the ninth amendment, we the people reserve the right to define and maintain the definities of the word "substantive". But the court uses the phrase to make it mean whatever they prefer at the time. Sixth, where does it say in the Constitution that the legislative branch can give the judicial branch a power that it doesn't have in the first place? Oh, wait, no one is allowed to change the wording of the Constitution unless through the amendment process. This power was NEVER given to the judicial branch and could NOT be without an amendment.

Why has THIS enabling act been left out?

Rules_Enabling_Act_19_Jun_1934_text.txt page 1089 of 2074 @ 150 images per page

https://www.loc.gov/resource/llsalvol.llsal_048/?sp=1089

specifically: https://tile.loc.gov/image-services/iiif/service:ll:llsalvol:llsal_048:10891064/full/pct:100/0/default.jpg

Image with text: 1064 73d CONGRESS. SESS. II. CHS. 651, 652. JUNE 19, 1934. [CHAPTER 651.] June 19, 1931. [S. 3040.] [Public, No. 411.] Supreme Court of United States. Power to prescribe rules in civil actions at law. Rights of litigant. Effective date. Rules in equity and law may be united. Proviso. Right of trial by jury. Effective date of united rules. June 19, 1934. [S. 3285.] [Public, No. 416.] AN ACT To give the Supreme Court of the United States authority to make and publish rules in actions at law. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Supreme Court of the United States shall have the power to prescribe, by general rules, for the district courts of the United States and for the courts of the District of Columbia, the forms of process, writs, pleadings, and motions, and the practice and procedure in civil actions at law. Said rules shall neither abridge, enlarge, nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant. They shall take effect six months after their promulgation, and thereafter all laws in conflict therewith shall be of no further force or effect. SEC. 2. The court may at any time unite the general rules prescribed by it for cases in equity with those in actions at law so as to secure one form of civil action and procedure for both: Provided, however, That in such union of rules the right of trial by jury as at common law and declared by the seventh amendment to the Constitution shall be preserved to the parties inviolate. Such united rules shall not take effect until they shall have been reported to Congress by the Attorney General at the beginning of a regular session thereof and until after the close of such session. Approved, June 19, 1934. Qsmxpilot (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

You know, from this article here in Wikipedia, I begin to question why we even have "Enabling Acts". It seems that these types of acts are a way to circumvent a Constitution. We have the amendment process. Why are we trying to circumvent our Constitution with enabling acts? Though many enabling acts have been passed by congress, I don't think they are constitutional and they ALL should be repealed. If we're going to expand the government, let's do it properly. Qsmxpilot (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Over-emphasis on authoritarian abuse vs. mundane administrative function

This page gives a very skewed picture of what an enabling act is by providing the impression that they are primarily malign or controversial attempts by executive branches to undermine legislatures. In reality, the phrase "enabling act" or "enabling legislation" describes a mundane and widely used mechaism throguh which legislatures delegate specific rule-making power to executive actors (see Primary and secondary legislation).

I've proposed that this page be merged into the broader Primary and secondary legislation article - Talk:Primary and secondary legislation#Merge proposal. As part of this, the examples in this article could be largely grouped together under a 'controversies' heading. Murr1321 (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2026 (UTC)