Re: New section 512

On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, Kaye Caldwell <kaye[_at_]ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> When this happens in California, the last bill signed amends the law
> as enacted in prior bills signed thus "erasing", or as it's called in
> the Capitol "chaptering out", any duplicate earlier signed provisions.
> Is this NOT the case in federal law? I should think it would be. Thus
> the last signed bill would override earlier signed provisions.

I would be surprised if a mere clerical error in using the same section number, in two simultaneously pending bills that are independent of one another, would result in eliminating a portion of one of the enacted bills.

Basically, such an approach would require reading section 202(a) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which says "Chapter 5 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 511 the following new section" as if it said "... by replacing section 512 with the following new section."

To read "add" as though it said "replace" seems so contradictory to the legislative intent, not to mention the plain meaning of the words, particularly when the bill that added the section 512 that would be replaced had not become law by the time of the second bill's enactment, that I cannot imagine that any reasonable person would read it that way. I hope the same result would come about with respect to California law as well.

-- 
Terry Carroll       | "Report of the Committee On Governmental Affairs,
Santa Clara, CA     | United States Senate, To Accompany S. 1364, An Act To
carroll[_at_]tjc.com     | Eliminate Unnecessary and Wasteful Federal Reports."
Modell delendus est |  - Title of U.S. Senate Report 105-187, May 11, 1998