Yes, I think what Prof. Laycock says is also true. And it's probably true
that if congressional action were needed, a change from 666 to 665a could be
included in a long list of technical corrections attached to some omnibus bill,
and no Member would even notice it. But I'm not sure a court could order
Congress to do that, while a court could (at least more likely could) order the
Office of the Law Revision Counsel to make such a change. But I suppose I'm
straying from religion and the law.
Art Spitzer
In a message dated 8/1/08 3:35:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Except that sometimes, I think the drafters do it right in the bill. If
> they are amending existing legislation that has already been numbered, and
> they
> are inserting new sections, I think that the bill sometimes numbers those
> sections. So Section 2 of the bill may amend section 665 of the existing Act
> and add a new section 666. I'm pretty sure I've seen examples of this,
> although I can't swear to it.
> If the bill number is created by an Act of Congress, then I suppose it
> takes another Act of Congress to change it. Which is why you occasionally
> see
> bills to correct typos.
>
**************
Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017
)
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
