0
16 U.S.C. § 231d — Repeal of inconsistent laws
submitted 87 years ago by ch. 640 to r/title-16-CONSERVATION · 18 words · no verdicts yet
in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice
This law cancels any earlier law that conflicts with it. Only the conflicting part is canceled. Everything else in those older laws stays in effect.
This is a standard "repealer" clause. It says that if any part of an earlier law — a whole Act or just part of one — conflicts with this subchapter, that conflicting part is repealed, meaning it is canceled and no longer has legal force.
The repeal only reaches "to the extent of such inconsistency." That means only the specific part of the older law that actually conflicts with this subchapter is canceled. Any part of an older law that does not conflict stays in effect.
This section does not name which older laws it might affect. It works automatically: whenever an older law's text clashes with what this subchapter requires, the older, conflicting text loses effect, and this subchapter's rule controls instead.
the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain
All Acts or parts of Acts inconsistent with this subchapter are repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.
Source credit: (Aug. 10, 1939, ch. 640, § 5, 53 Stat. 1342.)
history & why it existsrecord from the source credit
- 1939Enacted · Act of Aug. 10, 1939, ch. 640 · 53 Stat. 1342
A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by ch. 640 on 1939-08-10.
all 0 arguments · sorted by: best
no arguments yet — make the first case