I will bring up another point because someone might come across this term "Positive Law" as being used in a similar but slightly different way.

Now that I think about it, let's say there are two ways to think of the concept of "Positive Law" -- A and B.

The "A" way is what you stated. It is the big picture of the concept.

The "B" way is a more limited use, but could be a smokescreen to make law school students think that this is the ONLY use of the term.

By essentially replacing one concept for the other, but using the same term, they can effectively change the way people look at it, but using the same term.

(Just like how "gay" used to mean happy, but nobody uses that word to express that concept anymore.)

I ran across the term "Positive Law" awhile back.

What I got from it was that the United States Code was indexed into 50 titles.

These are organized by subject matter, but the statutes themselves (the ACTUAL ones passed by Congress) are in the Statutes at Large.

So the USC is taken from the SAL.

However, there is no guarantee that ALL of the SAL are correctly copied into the USC, and organized there. It is theoretically possible that some statute somewhere was left out or altered when copied to the USC.

This was a problem around 100 years ago. So, they began reviewing the USC and went back to go through all the SAL to see if they had everything right in a particular title of the USC.

This was done before computers, so it was a monumental task.

Only about half of the 50 titles of the USC were reviewed in this way. The ones that were had an "official seal of approval" that they were, in fact, the true and correct laws of the United States with regard to the subject matter of that particular title.

Congress then passed a resolution that "Title such-and-such is hereby enacted as Positive Law."

This means that in a court case, a party can cite the USC and that would be sufficient to quoting "the law" (which would otherwise be found in the SAL). But this is only true for those titles that have been enacted into Positive Law.

Any title not enacted into Positive Law is only prima facie evidence of the law. The SAL might (or might not) be different. Wherever there might be a difference, the SAL is the correct law, not the USC.

In the beginning of the USC books, you will find a listing of each title and its subject matter. I have seen that they have an asterisk by the titles that were enacted into Positive Law, but not the others.

Title 26, the Income Tax, is one without an asterisk. I think that the "law" on that subject has been so convoluted over the years that they will never unravel what ALL of the statues actually say (remember: each statute that changes the wording of a previous statute must be incorporated into the current version of what the "law is").

That is my understanding of the term "Positive Law."

Of course, it is quite possible (in fact, likely) that Congress has usurped this term "Positive Law" to mean this "official recognition" of what the statutes say, so as to hide the fact that the bigger topic of what you are saying also uses that terminology.

Wordsmith fuckery is probably 99% of today's "law."

BTW, I think that some of the things you stated is why the 9th Amendment to the Constitution is one of the most important.

I would say that Article 6, 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, and the Preamble to the Bill or Rights are the most important parts of the Constitution for the purpose of understanding our overall system of government.

I will bring up another point because someone might come across this term "Positive Law" as being used in a similar but slightly different way.

Now that I think about it, let's say there are two ways to think of the concept of "Positive Law" -- A and B.

The "A" way is what you stated. It is the big picture of the concept.

The "B" way is a more limited use, but could be a smokescreen to make law school students think that this is the ONLY use of the term.

By essentially replacing one concept for the other, but using the same term, they can effectively change the way people look at it, but using the same term.

(Just like how "gay" used to mean happy, but nobody uses that word to express that concept anymore.)

I ran across the term "Positive Law" awhile back.

What I got from it was that the United States Code was indexed into 50 titles.

These are organized by subject matter, but the statutes themselves (the ACTUAL ones passed by Congress) are in the Statutes at Large.

So the USC is taken from the SAL.

However, there is no guarantee that ALL of the SAL are correctly copied into the USC, and organized there. It is theoretically possible that some statute somewhere was left out or altered when copied to the USC.

This was a problem around 100 years ago. So, they began reviewing the USC and went back to go through all the SAL to see if they had everything right in a particular title of the USC.

This was done before computers, so it was a monumental task.

Only about half of the 50 titles of the USC were reviewed in this way. The ones that were had an "official seal of approval" that they were, in fact, the true and correct laws of the United States with regard to the subject matter of that particular title.

Congress then passed a resolution that "Title such-and-such is hereby enacted as Positive Law."

This means that in a court case, a party can cite the USC and that would be sufficient to quoting "the law" (which would otherwise be found in the SAL). But this is only true for those titles that have been enacted into Positive Law.

Any title not enacted into Positive Law is only prima facie evidence of the law. The SAL might (or might not) be different. Wherever there might be a difference, the SAL is the correct law, not the USC.

In the beginning of the USC books, you will find a listing of each title and its subject matter. I have seen that they have an asterisk by the titles that were enacted into Positive Law, but not the others.

Title 26, the Income Tax, is one without an asterisk. I think that the "law" on that subject has been so convoluted over the years that they will never unravel what ALL of the statues actually say (remember: each statute that changes the wording of a previous statute must be incorporated into the current version of what the "law is").

That is my understanding of the term "Positive Law."

Of course, it is quite possible (in fact, likely) that Congress has usurped this term "Positive Law" to mean this "official recognition" of what that statutes say, to hide the fact that the bigger topic of what you are saying also uses that terminology.

Wordsmith fuckery is probably 99% of today's "law."

BTW, I think that some of the things you stated is why the 9th Amendment to the Constitution is one of the most important.

I would say that Article 6, 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, and the Preamble to the Bill or Rights are the most important parts of the Constitution for the purpose of understanding our overall system of government.

I will bring up another point because someone might come across this term "Positive Law" as being used in a similar but slightly different way.

Now that I think about it, let's say there are two ways to think of the concept of "Positive Law" -- A and B.

The "A" way is what you stated. It is the big picture of the concept.

The "B" way is a more limited use, but could be a smokescreen to make law school students think that this is the ONLY use of the term.

By essentially replacing one concept for the other, but using the same term, they can effectively change the way people look at it, but using the same term.

(Just like how "gay" used to mean happy, but nobody uses that word to express that concept anymore.)

I ran across the term "Positive Law" awhile back.

What I got from it was that the United States Code was indexed into 50 titles.

These are organized by subject matter, but the statutes themselves (the ACTUAL ones passed by Congress) are in the Statutes at Large.

So the USC is taken from the SAL.

However, there is no guarantee that ALL of the SAL are correctly copied into the USC, and organized there. It is theoretically possible that some statute somewhere was left out or altered when copied to the USC.

This was a problem around 100 years ago. So, they began reviewing the USC and went back to go through all the SAL to see if they had everything right in a particular title of the USC.

This was done before computers, so it was a monumental task.

Only about half of the 50 titles of the USC were reviewed in this way. The ones that were had an "official seal of approval" that they were, in fact, the true and correct laws of the United States with regard to the subject matter of that particular title.

Congress then passed a resolution that "Title such-and-such is hereby enacted as Positive Law."

This meant that in a court case, a party could cite the USC and that would be sufficient to quoting "the law" (which would otherwise be found in the SAL).

Any title not enacted into Positive Law was only prima facie evidence of the law, but the SAL might (or might not) be different. Wherever there might be a difference, the SAL the correct law, not the USC.

In the beginning of the USC, you will find a listing of each title and its subject matter. I have seen that they have an asterisk by the titles that were enacted into Positive Law, but not the others.

Title 26, the Income Tax, is one without an asterisk. I think that the "law" on that subject has been so convoluted over the years that they will never unravel what ALL of the statues actually say (remember: each statute that changes the wording of a previous statute must be incorporated into the current version of what the "law is").

That is my understanding of the term "Positive Law."

Of course, it is quite possible (in fact, likely) that Congress has usurped this term "Positive Law" to mean this "official recognition" of what that statutes say, to hide the fact that the bigger topic of what you are saying also uses that terminology.

Wordsmith fuckery is probably 99% of today's "law."

BTW, I think that some of the things you stated is why the 9th Amendment to the Constitution is one of the most important.

I would say that Article 6, 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, and the Preamble to the Bill or Rights are the most important parts of the Constitution for the purpose of understanding our overall system of government.

I will bring up another point because someone might come across this term "Positive Law" as being used in a similar but slightly different way.

Now that I think about it, let's say there are two ways to think of the concept of "Positive Law" -- A and B.

The "A" way is what you stated. It is the big picture of the concept.

The "B" way is a more limited use, but could be a smokescreen to make law school students think that this is the ONLY use of the term.

By essentially replacing one concept for the other, but using the same term, they can effectively change the way people look at it, but using the same term.

(Just like how "gay" used to mean happy, but nobody uses that word to express that concept anymore.)

I ran across the term "Positive Law" awhile back.

What I got from it was that the United States Code was indexed into 50 titles.

These are organized by subject matter, but the statutes themselves (the ACTUAL ones passed by Congress) are in the Statutes at Large.

So the USC is taken from the SAL.

However, there is no guarantee that ALL of the SAL are correctly copied into the USC, and organized there. It is theoretically possible that some statute somewhere was left out or altered when copied to the USC.

This was a problem around 100 years ago. So, they began reviewing the USC and went back to go through all the SAL to see if they had everything right in a particular title of the USC.

This was done before computers, so it was a monumental task.

Only about half of the 50 titles of the USC were reviewed in this way. The ones that were had an "official seal of approval" that they were, in fact, the true and correct laws of the United States with regard to the subject matter of that particular title.

Congress then passed a resolution that "Title such-and-such is hereby enacted as Positive Law."

This meant that in a court case, a party could cite the USC and that would be sufficient to quoting "the law" (which would otherwise be found in the SAL).

Any title not enacted into Positive Law was only prima facie evidence of the law, but the SAL might (or might not) be different. If it was different, that it is the law and not the USC.

In the beginning of the USC, you will find a listing of each title and its subject matter. I have seen that they have an asterisk by the titles that were enacted into Positive Law, but not the others.

Title 26, the Income Tax, is one without an asterisk. I think that the "law" on that subject has been so convoluted over the years that they will never unravel what ALL of the statues actually say (remember: each statute that changes the wording of a previous statute must be incorporated into the current version of what the "law is").

That is my understanding of the term "Positive Law."

Of course, it is quite possible (in fact, likely) that Congress has usurped this term "Positive Law" to mean this "official recognition" of what that statutes say, to hide the fact that the bigger topic of what you are saying also uses that terminology.

Wordsmith fuckery is probably 99% of today's "law."

BTW, I think that some of the things you stated is why the 9th Amendment to the Constitution is one of the most important.

I would say that Article 6, 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, and the Preamble to the Bill or Rights are the most important parts of the Constitution for the purpose of understanding our overall system of government.