This might seem unrelated, but I think it covers a LOT of ground, including the question of "what to do about guns."
The proposal is simple: All laws have a 10-year expiration. No laws can be grandfathered into some kind of permanence either.
Then, if people really like a law, they have several choices:
(1) Re-propose the law as is, and submit it to the same process as the original one underwent. Or...
(2) Make a new law -- presumably one that incorporates the best portions of the original law, and eliminates or tweaks those portions that don't work or work less well -- then submit the new law to the same process, as the first law, etc. Or...
(3) Ignore the fact that the law has expired and let it remain defunct, off the books and unenforced.
Note: If following path #1 or #2, above, do NOT permit shortcuts to the process because corrupt legislators and their leaders might fast try to track laws through the legislative process. No cancelled or shortened debate; no "deeming" anything as passed; no replacing the law before its expiration; no artificial resetting of the clock. Things like that.
This will accomplish a number of REALLY important, REALLY valuable things. It will:
(1) Force legislators to focus on truly important laws. There are, after all, only so many hours in a day, and so many days in a legislative session. Legislators will have to prioritize being sure that there's a law against murder or armed robbery over, say, a law mandating gender-neutral bathrooms or other such hoohah.
(2) Constantly improve laws, as legislators see what works and doesn't work.
(3) Allow for experimentation, permitting the legal system to become kind of a local "laboratory of democracy."
(7) Make it relatively easy, but NOT automatic, to keep the good laws that work according to their stated purpose, and that address a current need. Simply re-use the text of the old law.
Hence, this simple adjustment to the legislative process, over time, would fix the laws in ALL areas of life, not JUST guns.
I like the idea a lot, in theory. The cynic in me laments that it'd be worked around, or set up to fail. Our system is only as good as the people that run it.
That said, there's a practical problem - the uncertainty factor. I faced it, personally, this past year, when there was talk about tax code changes that would have greatly affected some transactions I was carrying out, if I didn't get them done in the calendar year. Businesses need some sense of stability in laws and regs, and if a piece of tax code is about to expire, only to possibly be reprieved at the last minute by a legislative vote, the chaos that this would cause would be substantial.
Oh, yeah... there's a lot to be ironed out, including what you mentioned.
I suspect, though, that businesses, et al, would accommodate themselves to the NEW landscape readily.
It's ALSO possible that this kind of thing would PREVENT frivolous or parasitical tax laws and the like, similar to what you referred to, because of the reduced time frame for legislators to focus on such nonsense, AND the fact that it will expire in 10 years anyway.
I think that, over time, the legal landscape would steady out, as the system forced legislators to reconsider their laws repeatedly in function of the ACTUAL results they produced, and the changing times. Such a system ALSO, I think, would encourage legislators to think through their legislation more thoroughly if they ACTUALLY wanted it to survive over time.
Needless to say, MANY laws might need to be on the books only for 10 years ANYWAY, if they actually solve a problem. :)
I'd LOVE to be able to try it out, say, in a state or the like, but the problem THEN would be the primacy of federal law, preventing the state from acting like a "laboratory of democracy" as they're supposed to.
Excellent, excellent, excellent reasoning!
I found myself shouting at the TV last night: "what laws would you propose???" Then he went on to lie about the "assault weapon" "ban".
This might seem unrelated, but I think it covers a LOT of ground, including the question of "what to do about guns."
The proposal is simple: All laws have a 10-year expiration. No laws can be grandfathered into some kind of permanence either.
Then, if people really like a law, they have several choices:
(1) Re-propose the law as is, and submit it to the same process as the original one underwent. Or...
(2) Make a new law -- presumably one that incorporates the best portions of the original law, and eliminates or tweaks those portions that don't work or work less well -- then submit the new law to the same process, as the first law, etc. Or...
(3) Ignore the fact that the law has expired and let it remain defunct, off the books and unenforced.
Note: If following path #1 or #2, above, do NOT permit shortcuts to the process because corrupt legislators and their leaders might fast try to track laws through the legislative process. No cancelled or shortened debate; no "deeming" anything as passed; no replacing the law before its expiration; no artificial resetting of the clock. Things like that.
This will accomplish a number of REALLY important, REALLY valuable things. It will:
(1) Force legislators to focus on truly important laws. There are, after all, only so many hours in a day, and so many days in a legislative session. Legislators will have to prioritize being sure that there's a law against murder or armed robbery over, say, a law mandating gender-neutral bathrooms or other such hoohah.
(2) Constantly improve laws, as legislators see what works and doesn't work.
(3) Allow for experimentation, permitting the legal system to become kind of a local "laboratory of democracy."
(4) Remove old, useless, obsolete, unnecessary laws automatically.
(5) Dramatically simplify the legal system.
(6) Time limit the damage that bad laws can do.
(7) Make it relatively easy, but NOT automatic, to keep the good laws that work according to their stated purpose, and that address a current need. Simply re-use the text of the old law.
Hence, this simple adjustment to the legislative process, over time, would fix the laws in ALL areas of life, not JUST guns.
I like the idea a lot, in theory. The cynic in me laments that it'd be worked around, or set up to fail. Our system is only as good as the people that run it.
That said, there's a practical problem - the uncertainty factor. I faced it, personally, this past year, when there was talk about tax code changes that would have greatly affected some transactions I was carrying out, if I didn't get them done in the calendar year. Businesses need some sense of stability in laws and regs, and if a piece of tax code is about to expire, only to possibly be reprieved at the last minute by a legislative vote, the chaos that this would cause would be substantial.
Oh, yeah... there's a lot to be ironed out, including what you mentioned.
I suspect, though, that businesses, et al, would accommodate themselves to the NEW landscape readily.
It's ALSO possible that this kind of thing would PREVENT frivolous or parasitical tax laws and the like, similar to what you referred to, because of the reduced time frame for legislators to focus on such nonsense, AND the fact that it will expire in 10 years anyway.
I think that, over time, the legal landscape would steady out, as the system forced legislators to reconsider their laws repeatedly in function of the ACTUAL results they produced, and the changing times. Such a system ALSO, I think, would encourage legislators to think through their legislation more thoroughly if they ACTUALLY wanted it to survive over time.
Needless to say, MANY laws might need to be on the books only for 10 years ANYWAY, if they actually solve a problem. :)
I'd LOVE to be able to try it out, say, in a state or the like, but the problem THEN would be the primacy of federal law, preventing the state from acting like a "laboratory of democracy" as they're supposed to.