Talk:Uniform Law Commission

Untitled

I do not understand the reasoning behind this organization. If the point is to get uniformity among the states, isn't that what the United States Congress is for? I mean, certainly the whole states rights versus federal rights thing comes in, but if a matter is truely meant to be a uniform law, then why doesn't this organization lobby the US House or Senate to pass these bills? _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  22:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Because, as you hint, many areas of law are subject to individual control by the states (although these areas are rapidly dwindling). Take a look at Federalism in the United States. Uniform laws are still helpful; the most well-known and widespread example being the Uniform Commercial Code TjoeC (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" and is the basis that only federal issues may be addressed by the federal government. Thus issues relating to individual states (such as specific laws in seperate states) must be addressed by the respective state, not the federal government (or Congress). An everyday example of this might include motor vehicle safety or emission inspections, which are required by some states (based on the state specific law), but not all states.

While each state has the authority to create and pass different laws for their state (relating to non-federal issues), the ULC attempts to bring common ground across many states by proposing uniform law language examples and goals; the individual states can then adopt into their state's law if they choose. For certain complex legal areas such as probate law (estate, wills, trusts, etc.), or commercial business law (corporations, LLCs, contracts, etc.), it is very helpful for have similar laws and requirements in multiple states. However, neither probate law or business law is an issue that may be regulated by the federal government, so it is ultimately for each state to laws relating to these areas.

SomeThingsLaw (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Organization renamed to the Uniform Law Commission

Therefore, I will be renaming this article shortly. This happened in 2007 per Commercial Law’s Complexity. II | (t - c) 19:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Propaganda Piece

"Established in 1892, the ULC provides states with non-partisan, well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law." "The [ULC's] generous and well-intended efforts". This is nothing but a puff piece and an ad. 71.231.59.239 (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

NPOV issues regarding guilt and weather they deserved the death penalty (see talk)

The line in the lead, "Established in 1892, the ULC aims to provide U.S. states (plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) with well-researched and drafted legislation to bring clarity and stability to critical areas of statutory law across jurisdictions. The ULC promotes enactment of uniform acts in areas of state law where uniformity is desirable and practical.". While this may all be true, it's seems clearly a opinion rather then a fact. I'd imagine that a significant number of people might disagree with the idea that it provides "well-researched and drafted legislation" tthat "bring(s) clarity and stability to critical areas of statutory law across jurisdictions.". There could also be disagreement that "The ULC promotes enactment of uniform acts in areas of state law where uniformity is desirable and practical.".". As such, we need to state who is describing them in this manor, themselves or some outside party. If that is their stated purpose then let's make that clear without appearing to blindly accept that premise. We should change it to say something "They describe themselves as...." or "X, Y, and Z has describes them as..." rather then making the claim in the Wikipedia voice. Also, I don't know much about the ULC but if their are any criticisms of them then that should be included in the article. Once they where a major force behind the heavily controversial and criticized Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA), surely they received some flak over how they drafted that model law. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, the wording "the ULC aims to" is nearly equivalent in meaning to "the ULC describes its purpose as" or something similar: Both are descriptions of how they view themselves. I don't think that part is problematic. I can see your point on "The ULC promotes..." however, but I don't think the first part needs to be changed. Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 15:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)