repeal by implication

简明释义

相互抵销

英英释义

例句

1.Legislators must be careful not to repeal by implication important consumer protections when drafting new laws.

立法者在起草新法律时必须小心，以免暗示性废除重要的消费者保护措施。

2.The new law on environmental protection may repeal by implication the older regulations that allowed pollution.

新的环境保护法可能会暗示性废除允许污染的旧法规。

3.The court ruled that the recent amendment to the labor law repeals by implication the previous wage regulations.

法院裁定，最近对劳动法的修正案暗示性废除了先前的工资规定。

4.When the government passed the new tax code, it inadvertently repealed by implication several outdated tax exemptions.

当政府通过新的税法时，它不经意间暗示性废除了几项过时的税收豁免。

5.The adoption of the new educational policy could repeal by implication previous funding formulas.

新教育政策的采用可能会暗示性废除以前的资金公式。

作文

In the realm of law, the concept of repeal by implication refers to a situation where a new law effectively nullifies or contradicts an existing law without explicitly stating that the old law is repealed. This legal principle is often invoked in cases where two statutes cannot coexist due to conflicting provisions. Understanding repeal by implication is crucial for legal practitioners, lawmakers, and individuals who seek to navigate the complexities of legislative changes.To illustrate this concept, consider a hypothetical scenario where a state passes a new law regulating the use of electric scooters on public roads. The new law includes specific safety requirements and penalties for violations. However, prior to this new legislation, there was an existing law that allowed bicycles to operate under less stringent regulations. If the new electric scooter law does not mention the previous bicycle law, but its provisions are so comprehensive that they cover all aspects of scooter operation, one could argue that the earlier bicycle law has been repealed by implication.The rationale behind repeal by implication lies in the notion that the legislature intended to create a uniform set of rules governing transportation methods. When a new law is enacted that addresses the same subject matter in a way that is incompatible with the old law, it is reasonable to conclude that the legislature intended for the new law to take precedence. Thus, while the old law remains on the books, it becomes ineffective in practice.However, the doctrine of repeal by implication is not without its controversies. Critics argue that this principle can lead to uncertainty and confusion, particularly when courts are tasked with interpreting legislative intent. For instance, if a court determines that a new law implicitly repeals an older statute, it may inadvertently create a legal vacuum where no clear regulations exist. This can result in challenges for individuals and businesses that rely on the stability of existing laws.Moreover, the application of repeal by implication can vary significantly from one jurisdiction to another. Different states or countries may have distinct approaches to how they interpret legislative intent and the extent to which a new law can be said to repeal an older one. As such, legal professionals must remain vigilant and informed about the specific rules and precedents that govern their jurisdiction.In conclusion, the principle of repeal by implication plays a vital role in the interpretation of laws and the evolution of legal frameworks. It serves as a reminder that the legislative process is dynamic and that new laws can reshape the legal landscape in profound ways. For those engaged in law or policy-making, a thorough understanding of this concept is essential for ensuring compliance and navigating the intricacies of legal change. As society continues to evolve, so too will the laws that govern it, making the study of principles like repeal by implication ever more relevant.

在法律领域中，“repeal by implication”这一概念指的是一种情况，即新法律有效地使现有法律无效或相互矛盾，而没有明确说明旧法律被废除。这一法律原则通常在两项法规由于冲突条款而无法共存的情况下被引用。理解repeal by implication对法律从业者、立法者和希望驾驭立法变化复杂性的人们至关重要。为了说明这一概念，考虑一个假设场景：一个州通过了一项新的法律，规范电动滑板车在公共道路上的使用。新法律包括具体的安全要求和违规处罚。然而，在这项新立法之前，已经存在一项允许自行车在较宽松的规定下运营的旧法律。如果新的电动滑板车法律没有提及之前的自行车法律，但其条款是如此全面，以至于涵盖了滑板车操作的所有方面，人们可以认为早期的自行车法律已经被repeal by implication。repeal by implication背后的理由在于立法机关意图创建统一的交通规则。当一项新法律以与旧法律不兼容的方式处理同一主题时，可以合理地推断出立法机关希望新法律优先适用。因此，虽然旧法律仍然存在于法典中，但在实践中变得无效。然而，“repeal by implication”原则并非没有争议。批评者认为，这一原则可能导致不确定性和混乱，特别是在法院被要求解释立法意图时。例如，如果法院认定一项新法律隐含地废除了旧法规，它可能会不经意间造成法律真空，导致没有明确的规定。这可能会给依赖现有法律稳定性的个人和企业带来挑战。此外，“repeal by implication”的适用在不同的管辖区之间可能有显著差异。不同的州或国家可能对如何解释立法意图以及新法律在多大程度上可以被认为废除了旧法律有不同的处理方式。因此，法律专业人士必须保持警惕，并了解其管辖区内的具体规则和先例。总之，“repeal by implication”这一原则在法律的解释和法律框架的发展中发挥着重要作用。它提醒我们立法过程是动态的，新法律可以以深远的方式重塑法律格局。对于从事法律或政策制定的人来说，透彻理解这一概念对于确保合规性和驾驭法律变化的复杂性至关重要。随着社会的不断发展，规范社会的法律也将不断演变，使得对像“repeal by implication”这样的原则的研究愈发相关。