The result was keep. Courcelles ( talk) 00:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
1) The article is poorly sourced. 2) It completely misapprehends what federal statutes are saying about positive law. It repeatedly refers to a "restricted sense" of "positive law" that simply does not exist. All the statute is saying is that the Code is prima facie evidence of federal statutes (meaning it can be rebutted by better evidence of the congressional enactment, which are positive law) unless the particular title has been enacted into positive law itself, in which case it supplants the original act and is conclusive evidence of the law.
Thus, the article is completely OR and is unsalvageable because there is no special definition of the term in relation to the United States Code. Rrius ( talk) 15:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles ( talk) 00:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply
1) The article is poorly sourced. 2) It completely misapprehends what federal statutes are saying about positive law. It repeatedly refers to a "restricted sense" of "positive law" that simply does not exist. All the statute is saying is that the Code is prima facie evidence of federal statutes (meaning it can be rebutted by better evidence of the congressional enactment, which are positive law) unless the particular title has been enacted into positive law itself, in which case it supplants the original act and is conclusive evidence of the law.
Thus, the article is completely OR and is unsalvageable because there is no special definition of the term in relation to the United States Code. Rrius ( talk) 15:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply