Expiration Dates on Laws

So long as we continue to "preserve" that language then we continue to preserve government overreach because of vague interpretable phrases like "provide for the general welfare" and "regulate interstate commerce".

 

Oh, I thought thou meant older spelling like that which I hath shewn in these two sentences. I agree with thee that they ought to be rewritten so they are not so ambiguous.

 

Well our current system is set up so that its hard to change the constitution, both to add or remove an amendment. If the current powers that be had their way, the 2nd amendment would have been scrapped (at least the 2008 congress would've done it). The idea is that, because its so hard to change, the law of the land may reflect the will of previous generations and not the current, but be too cumbersome for the current one to change.

That's my understanding of the Jeffersonian view, but I like how it is. I don't like easily changed laws

 

Well, I'm not suggesting that we scrap the bill of rights, if anything, I think the constitution and amendments should be the only set of laws that are permanent. The issue is that we pass a lot of laws that "sound good" at the time, and end up either not working, causing more problems than they solve, or costing much more than they were intended to. And related to that especially in modern times is the temptation to add "riders" all over these bills that have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of that bill. It's done precisely because laws aren't going to revisited, so if you can sneak something into the thousands of pages of that bill, and the bill is popular, you can get stuff through that no one would consider on its own merits.

Say for example you wanted to pass a law making it illegal to carry a Koran within 100 miles of a national monument. It's a stupid crazy and not very popular idea. So you don't put that in as a stand-alone bill. You attach that bad boy to other, very popular or very routine legislation where most people won't be paying attention. Or if they do happen to catch the line, the rest of the bill is so popular or necessary that to oppose it would make you look crazy. Who could possibly vote against the "Feed the Orphans Act of 2025"? What do you hate orphans or something? At least with a sunset, the worst provisions of an Act would only be in effect for a few years before it came up for review, and could be re-passed without the bad provisions.

 

My answer to that is that the gigantic legal code is what is impractical. When the legislature has to vote to re-pass a law, and then vote to make another new law, the idea is that they will have an incentive to make only one new law that does the work of both.

A few people mentioned programming in this thread. People aren't computers, but the legal code is a code. And anyone who programs (or writes game rules) knows that good code is streamlined, compartmentalized, and well commented. The legal code is a gigantic mess that requires our subsidizing a class of parasites (whom we all know as "lawyers") to interpret it for everybody.

To clarify, I am calling for all sunsetted bills to come up for vote, or be automatically scrapped. I also don't believe legislature should be allowed to choose the expiration date; 20 years seems like a good length of time - not too restrictive, but enough to clean out the dead wood.

Agreed, and the constitution should be hard to change. The idea is that we shouldn't just amend it however we like, but must think very carefully before altering it. I would probably also put a cap on the word length of the constitution, and a requirement that the average highschool graduate can understand it, to keep it simple, and prevent legislature from using it to get around the sunset laws.

Agreed. It can go in the constitution.

If there's a need to change the constitution, there can be a call for a referendum and changes can be voted on, requiring something like a 2/3 or 3/4 majority to enact.

Actually, I hadn't considered the way sunsets would help clean out laws that piggyback on top of other laws. That's an interesting side benny.

 

Agreed.

All initiatives based on someone's faith in socialism should be cancelled first. You know, food stamps, Section 8, Socialist Security, Medicare, public education, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

You'll figure it out.

 

Yeah?

FIRST THING TO CHECK FOR:

CONSTITUTIONALITY!!!!!!!!

If it ain't constitutional, it shouldn't even exist.

Examples of unconstitutional laws:

MessiahCare - Violates the Originations Clause, First Amendment, Tenth Amendment, Eighth Amendment.
PATRIOT ACT - Violates the Fourth Amendment.
Federal funding of education - Article I, Section 8.
Social Security - Violates Article I, Section 8, and all laws against Ponzi Schemes.
etc.

 

The feelings of stupid lawyers too lazy to keep up with the changing laws isn't a problem anyone should be bothered about. The nation needs more dish washers, fewer lawyers.

Saddling someone's grand children with a stupid unconstitutional law because someone grandparents were too greedy to care isn't a valid argument. There should be a formal system in place to reject archaic laws as necessary. Look at the Socialist Security Ponzi Scheme vote buying boondoggle. Completely unconstitutional, and all the college age Stupids that voted for King Obama are on the hook for 120,000 billion dollars in unfunded debt, thanks to Socialist Security and many other scams their fascist parents put over on them.

Yep, you people are just about now blithering excitedly about the Constitution and how it's "outmoded".

Fine. Guess what the Constitution has? It has a LEGAL way of changing itself. So, it's never out of date, since it's changed as often as the people want it changed.

 

Can anything be better than burdening the corrupt (*)(*)(*)(*)s in Washington with two years worth of busy work, thereby keeping them from inventing new (*)(*)(*)(*), like MessiahCare?

- - - Updated - - -

You can amend the Constitution whenever you want. You just need enough people to go along with you.

 

If you ever have any doubt about what our federal Congress should be doing with our tax monies, promoting the general welfare is in our "mission statement".