Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Add: work. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were actually parameter name changes. | You can use this bot yourself. Report bugs here. | Suggested by AManWithNoPlan | All pages linked from cached copy of User:AManWithNoPlan/sandbox4 | via #UCB_webform_linked 2612/3766 |
GreenC bot (talk | contribs) Move 1 url. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:URLREQ#articles.latimes.com |
||
Line 9:
Sometimes courts refuse to apply [[legislative intent]] that conflicts with the text of the law, as in the case of the [[Virginia General Assembly]] accidentally repealing the exemptions of almost all industries from the statute requiring employers to allow employees not to work on [[Christian Sabbath|Sabbath]]. It was necessary for the legislature to re-assemble for a special session to correct the error.<ref>{{citation|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/us/virginia-lawmakers-trudge-back-to-scene-to-repair-error.html?pagewanted=1|title=Virginia Lawmakers Trudge Back to Scene to Repair Error|author=Bacon, Lisa|date=July 14, 2004|work=New York Times}}</ref>
There have been instances, most commonly involving [[ballot initiative]]s, in which the drafting error was known prior to enactment. For instance, in the case of Proposition 165, a California [[welfare reform]] initiative, [[Governor of California|California Governor]] [[Pete Wilson]] announced that his public campaign statements would let the courts know that a provision eliminating the legislature's power to override a veto was an "unintended error," and the mistake would be corrected, if necessary, by the courts.<ref>{{citation|url=
==References==
| |||